How much money was awarded in case 5010109?

Rent Arrears: $890.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5010109?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5010109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13169485-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5010109?

Rent Arrears: $890.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5010109?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5010109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13169485-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5010109 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5010109 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5010109 — net $40.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 July 2024	$890.00	Rent arrears to 24 July 2024
Net award	$40.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$40.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details, and the name of the tenant’s representative, and of all witnesses.

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $40.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $850.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Proceedings

The tenancy commenced on 06 December 2012. The landlord gave notice to end the tenancy on 17 July 2024. The tenant vacated on 24 July 2024. On 19 September 2024, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears. The tenant filed a counter claim the same date.

On 19 December 2024, a telephone Case Management Conference (CMC) was held at which both parties appeared. The claims were confirmed. The matter was then scheduled for a two-day hearing in February 2025. Due to unwellness and availability of the parties it was subsequently rescheduled to 23 September 2025.

On 23 September 2025, the tenant provided approximately 600 pages of documents, which had been provided to the landlord shortly before the hearing. The Tribunal briefly adjourned to give the landlord the opportunity to consider the additional material and to advise whether they sought an adjournment.

The landlord advised that they did not wish to delay the matter. The Tribunal then conducted another CMC and proceeded to hear the landlord’s only claim for rent arrears. The Tribunal then proceeded to hear some of the tenant’s claims before adjourning part heard.

On 15 October 2025, the matter was rescheduled for another in-person hearing on 3 November 2025. During the hearing, [The tenant’s representative] complained that the Tribunal was not using an index provided by the tenant. This argument was rejected. The Tribunal was using the index, and in fact, without it, the evidence would have been extremely difficult to navigate.

The matter was unable to be concluded and was again adjourned part heard.

During the hearing, the Tribunal raised concerns as to whether the tenant’s representative, [The tenant’s representative], was capable of continuing to represent [The tenant/s] in these matters. In the adjournment order the Tribunal invited the tenant to consider the matter and advise the Tribunal of any replacement or steps that may be taken to assist [The tenant’s representative].

On 22 December 2025, the matter was rescheduled for hearing on 23 January 2026. The tenant appeared with [The tenant’s representative] who advised the Tribunal that they were able to continue.

At the commencement of the hearing, the tenant alleged that the landlord’s support person, who accompanied the landlord and had also been present at the previous hearing, had been sharing details of the hearing, including those concerning the tenants and [The tenant’s representative]’s physical and mental health issues, with parties not related to the dispute. The tenant claimed this had resulted in professional embarrassment. The landlord disputes the allegations. Tribunal hearings are open to the public, unless there are good reasons to exclude them. No members of the public have been present, and to date no orders for interim suppression have been made. As suppression was likely to occur at the conclusion of these matters, I ordered interim suppression and suggested that the facts not be shared with those not a party to the proceedings. Claims

The onus of proving these claims rests with the party making them. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. In this case both must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).

The Tribunal has considered the material provided, which includes photographs and video footage, and has heard oral evidence from both parties. The tenant also called their [family member] and an associate to give oral evidence.

In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it.

The landlord claims that the tenant owes rent arrears.

Tenant claims are that the landlord: i. Entered the property without notice or sufficient notice/ interfered with reasonable peace comfort and privacy. (Interference with reasonable peace comfort and privacy, section 38(1), 38(2), unlawful entry, section 48(1), 48(2), 48(4), section 109 and schedule 1A) ii. Failed to comply with Healthy Homes Standards Regulations 2019 (HHS), (section 45(1) (bb), 45(1A), 45(1AC), 45(1AD), section 109 and schedule 1A) iii. Failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition, (Section 45(1)(b), 45(1A), section 109 and schedule 1A) iv. Interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy amounting to harassment (Interference with reasonable peace comfort and privacy amounting to harassment, section 38(1), (2), and (3), section 109 and schedule 1A) v. Issued a retaliatory termination notice, (section 54(1), (3), section 109 and schedule 1A)

The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.

The tenancy commenced in December 2012. The tenant’s application was filed 19 September 2024 and are the first claims made arising from the tenancy. An issue has arisen as to whether some or all of the tenant’s claims have been made out of time, in which case the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider them.

The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is set out in section 77 of the Act. Section 77 jurisdiction of the Tribunal: (1) The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.

The Tribunals jurisdiction is subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act 2010.

The Limitation Act (Limitation Act) provides that it is a defence to a money claim if the defendant proves that the date on which the claim is filed is at least 6 years after the date on which the claimant ought reasonably to have gained knowledge of the act or omission on which the claim is based.

Section 12 of the Limitation Act defines a money claim as a claim for monetary relief, whether under common law, equity, or statute.

Section 45 of the Limitation Act allows the Tribunal a discretion to deal with a claim filed outside the limitation period if satisfied that at the material time the claimant was incapacitated.

Section 46 of the Limitation Act defines “incapacitated “as a claimant who at the relevant time is unable to understand a decision was required in relation to a claim, or was unable to give sufficient instructions to issue, defend, or commence proceedings. The incapacity must arise from a temporary or permanent physical, intellectual, or mental impairment, or lawful or unlawful detention.

In this case there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the tenant was incapacitated at the relevant time. Landlords claim. Rent arrears.

The landlord seeks rent arrears to the end of the tenancy on 25 July 2025. The landlord has produced a rent summary which they state records all of the rent payments made by the tenant [detail redacted]. The landlord claims rent arrears of $955.71.

The tenant denies liability for rent arrears and stated that none are owing. The tenant dispute that the summary recorded all of the payments and produced a schedule of payments made by [redacted] one of which for $920.00 which they state was not recorded.

The tenant stated that on 30 June 2025 they had asked the landlord if they could have a few more days to vacate the property. They state the parties then agreed that the tenancy would end on 24 July 2025, with a final inspection the following day on 25 July 2025.

[The tenant’s representative] states that while at the property on 04 July 2025 she witnessed the tenant reach a verbal agreement with the landlord whereby the tenant would leave the drapes, blinds, and curtains, plants that they had planted in the garden, and a planter box in return for six days’ rent.

The landlord denies reaching any such agreement. The landlord stated that they intended to replace the curtains before the property was offered for sale and produced an invoice for replacement curtains. They stated that the plants referred to by the tenant added no value and the tenant was welcome to remove them. They state that the planter box was too heavy to move, and the tenant simply wanted to leave it.

The landlord stated that when they arrived at the inspection on 25 July 2025, the tenant had not fully vacated the property and that they were therefore entitled to consider the tenant remained in possession.

The tenant denied this, stating they had in fact moved out on 23 July 2025 and spent 24 July 2025 cleaning and that the property was vacant of their possessions on 25 July 2025.

The tenant challenges the landlord’s veracity, and provided two examples where they state the landlord had been untruthful. The tenant states the landlord claimed to have installed a new kitchen but had not. The tenant has obtained a copy of the landlord’s invoices, disclosed by the landlord, which they state [detail deleted]. The tenant states that the items on the invoice were not installed. The tenant has produced photographs taken when the kitchen was installed, showing that it was used and in poor condition.

The landlord denied the allegations and questioned the date of the tenant’s photographs. They stated that they had joinery experience and had purchased the kitchen in a kit set form. They assembled all but two of the cabinets on the invoice because they would not fit or could not be used by the tenant.

The tenant states that the landlord claims that they purchased and installed a new security light in 2018. The tenant states that the only security light was one at the front door which had been removed in 2014 and replaced with a standard light. They state the only security light was one that they had purchased and installed at the back door. Analysis and decision – rent arrears.

This is a landlord said versus tenant said situation. Having heard from the parties, I am not satisfied that there was any oral agreement reached whereby the tenant would leave items at the property in lieu of rent. In relation to the tenants challenging the landlord’s veracity, the passage of time has affected the parties recall of events. I am not satisfied that either party can offer accurate chronologies of events, and I place little weight on this evidence.

The termination notice gave the last date of the tenancy as 17 July 2024. Both parties accept that this was then extended to 24 July 2024. Again, this is a landlord said versus tenant said situation. The landlord did not provide any photographs showing any of the tenant’s possessions remaining at the property on 25 July 2024. I therefore find that the tenancy ended on 24 July 2024.

I have considered the rent summary, and the evidence provided by the tenant. I am satisfied that all of the rent payments made, by and on behalf of the tenant, [details deleted], have been recorded including the payment of $920.00 claimed by the tenant not to have been recorded. Accordingly, I award the landlord rent arrears of $890.00, which is the amount claimed less one day’s rent. Tenant’s claims Entered the property without notice or sufficient notice/ interfered with reasonable peace comfort and privacy amounting to harassment. Unlawful entry February 2023

The tenant states that in February 2023 the landlord and a contractor entered the property with permission, but that the landlord later returned without permission. The tenant stated that an associate visiting the address was unwell and in bed. After the landlord and contractor left the tenant left. The tenant stated that when they returned the associate advised that the landlord had entered their room. The associate gave evidence by phone. They stated that they could not recall the exact date but that it was likely February. They stated that the tenant left and about an hour later, a person they assumed was a landlord, entered their room with a tape measure and then left, no words were exchanged.

The landlord stated that they had not been at the property in February but recall being at the address around October 2023 with the consent of the tenant to look at flaky paint on the bedroom ceiling. They stated that the associate had been at the property, and this was the only time they had met them. They recall walking into the room to look at the ceiling and that the associate had been in bed. Unlawful entry April 2024

The tenant states the landlord spent three days painting the interior between 15 and 17 April 2024. The tenant stated that there was an argument about the work and that the landlord left in a “huff.” The tenant stated that later that day they received a text message from the landlord asking if they could return and collect some drop cloths left in the external garage. The tenant stated that they were in the toilet when they heard the landlord arrive. They state the landlord yelled out, too which the tenant responded that they were in the toilet. The tenant exited the toilet to find a 90-day eviction notice on the table. When they looked out the window, they saw the landlord exiting the garage. The tenant stated the landlord had no permission to enter the house or garage.

The landlord stated that they had spent three days at the property painting. On 17 April 2024, the tenant had expressed dissatisfaction at the priority the landlord was giving painting over matters including the replacement of the carpet. They stated there was a “discussion ‘during which the tenant became abusive, so they left. While away from the property the landlord’s consulted between themselves and decided that retaining the property as a rental investment, which they had had for a number of years as a retirement fund, was no longer feasible. They state that they texted the tenant. The landlord stated that they arrived and saw that the ranchslider and garage were both open. They called out. The tenant yelled out that they were in the toilet. The landlord stated that they had a 90-day notice and wanted to collect some drop cloths from the garage. They state the tenant said leave the notice on the table and that the garage was open. The landlord stated they stepped through the ranchslider and placed the notice on the table then went to the garage and collected the cloths before leaving. They did not otherwise speak with the tenant. They claim that they had express permission.

The tenant denies giving permission to enter. They deny leaving the ranchslider or garage open, describing the area in which the property is located as a high crime area. Interference on or about 01 April 2024

The tenant states that on or about 1 April 2024, a contract painter visited and advised the tenant that they needed to move furniture away from the walls. The tenant stated that the landlord then advised that the painter would begin two days later. The tenant and [The tenant’s representative], who the tenant describes as being disabled, moved the furniture. In their opinion the request was inappropriate and inconvenient.

The landlord denies that the contractor would have required furniture to be moved away from the walls, as they were only painting the ceiling.

The tenant’s associate stated they had been at the property when a painter was there but had not witnessed any conversation, and had assumed that the painter would move any furniture. Interference 19 February 2020

The tenant stated that at around midday on 19 February 2020 the landlord advised they wished to accompany a contractor and visit the property at 3pm. The tenant stated that it was inconvenient and denied the request. Interference 06 October 2018

The tenant states that at 9am on 06 October 2018 the received a text message from the landlord advising that they would be fixing potholes in the driveway. They did not give a time. The tenant stated that the landlord arrived and worked on the driveway for about an hour during which time the tenant did not feel they could use the driveway. Interference 29 April 2024

The tenant states that on 28 April 2024 at around 7am they received a text from the landlord that they wished to complete some work on the small wooden deck at the front of the property. The tenant stated they replied that they would be working and asked if the landlord required access to power. The tenant could not recall the landlord’s response, but that they accessed power inside the house.

The landlord stated that the tenant was home, but they used battery operated tools and did not access power inside. Interference 30 August 2019

The tenant states that at around 7.30am on 30 August 2019 the received a text from the landlord that they wished to visit and inspect the toilet, following an issue raised by the tenant. No time was given. The landlord did not turn up until 31 August 2019. The tenant stated that in anticipation of the visit they had stayed home. Interference 03 August 2019

The tenant states at around 9.30am on 03 August 2019 they received a text message from the landlord asking if they could visit after lunch. The tenant declined and the landlord did not visit. Interference 04 October 2020

The tenant stated that at around 8.30 am on 04 October 2020 they received a text message from the landlord stating that they wished to visit the property at around 8.20 am the next day. The tenant agreed but they landlord did not arrive. Interference 27 May 2020

The tenant stated that the landlord messaged and asked if they could visit, and the tenant agreed but now views this as an interference. Interference 23 December 2022.

The tenant states that the landlord climbed the fence to drop off some grass seed. Although the tenant had agreed that they required some grass seed no arrangements had been made for delivery. The tenant stated that they woke up early in the morning and witnessed the landlord dropping some grass seed by the front door.

The landlord denied jumping the fence but accepted that the parties had agreed for some grass seed to be delivered. Unlawful entry 24 December 2020

The tenant states that they were contacted by the landlord who insisted that they needed to visit the property on Christmas eve to change the smoke alarms. The tenant state that they said it was not a good time. They state the landlord said they were going away over Christmas / New Year and wanted to change the smoke alarms before they left. The tenant agreed, although they state they felt pressured. They state the landlord arrived and replaced smoke alarms and spent about 45 minutes working on the bathroom, which they had not agreed to. The tenant state that their family were present, and they did not wish to make a fuss.

The tenant stated that the alarms installed had been purchased in July 2019 and questioned the urgency.

The landlord agreed that they had changed the smoke alarms because they were going away for the Christmas and New Year break. They also accept that they went into the bathroom and applied some sealant, but deny it took 45 minutes. The stated that if the tenant had said it was not convenient that they would have left. They accepted that the tenant had said they were a bit annoyed. The landlord denied that anyone was at the property except for the tenant.

[The tenant’s representative] stated that as it was Christmas that all the tenant’s family would have been at the property, but did not appear to have personally witnessed the landlords visit. Interference amounting to harassment – van.

The tenant claims that the landlord harassed them about removing their partner's van from the property, claiming it was a wreck.

The landlord stated that they had asked about the van, which had no warrant or registration and had grass growing around it, just once and deny harassing the tenant. Interference amounting to harassment – lawns.

The tenant states that while at the property on 16 April 2024, painting, the landlord, despite the fact it was raining and the lawns had been mown 19 days prior, insisted that the lawns be mown again. [The tenant’s representative] states she was at the property and arranged for [Witness 1] to come around and mow the lawns. [The tenant’s representative] stated that while [Witness 1] was mowing the lawn, the landlord made continuous comments about how they were doing so.

[Witness 1] stated that he recalled being asked by [The tenant’s representative] to mow the lawn and that it was raining a bit. He was not sure if [The tenant] was there. He could not recall if the landlord were at the property when he arrived or whether they arrived afterward. He stated that while mowing the lawn, the landlord made a comment along the lines of “looks a bit tall, a bit shorter,” and only made the one comment.

The landlord denied that they had insisted the lawns required mowing but accepted that they had made just the one comment about the mower height. Interference amounting to harassment – allegations of smoking inside.

The tenant stated that the landlord had claimed the yellowing of the ceiling was due to the tenant smoking inside. The tenant stated that they suffered [health information removed] and were an ex-smoker adding that any visitors who wanted to smoke went outside. They stated that the ceiling was discoloured at the commencement of the tenancy, which had been made worse by the fact that the only heating provided by the landlord was a portable gas heater.

The landlord accepted that when they conducted inspections, they had commented that the property smelt of smoke, and that they had personally witnessed the tenant smoking inside and observed cigarette butts outside.

The tenant stated that the next-door neighbour smoked and threw their butts over the fence. Law

Under section 38(2) of the Act, a landlord must not cause or permit and interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

In the case of Smith v Floris, Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated: “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents. Balanced against that, however, one must bear in mind that landlord/tenant relationships tend to be between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for a breach of this type.”

Under section 39(3) an interference that also amounts to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be awarded.

Harassment is not defined in the Act. In the case of MacDonald v Dodds, CIV- 2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010, the Court considered harassment to mean "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person”.

Whether interference has occurred will depend on the proven facts and an objective assessment of whether the act in question exceeds what a tenant could reasonably be expected to endure under the circumstances.

Section 48 of the Act states that 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, repairs, and maintenance.

Section 48(7) states that for the purposes of the provision that “premises” do not include the land or any facilities.

Section 2 (1) of the Act defines facilities as those provided by the landlord for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment of the tenant, otherwise than as part of the premises that are subject of the tenancy agreement, including laundry and cooking facilities and recreational areas. Analysis and decision

Having heard from the parties, it is clear that for a significant period of the tenancy, the parties maintained a reasonable tenant–landlord relationship. The deterioration of that relationship appears to have coincided with the events alleged to have occurred on 17 April 2024.

During the hearing, when issues concerning evidential sufficiency arose, the tenant stated that they did not anticipate being in this position and offered this as an explanation for the lack of supporting evidence. Following the service of the notice to terminate the tenancy on 17 April 2024, the tenant has reviewed the course of the twelve-year tenancy and identified a number of incidents which they now consider to constitute interference or unlawful entry.

There is a direct conflict of evidence, requiring an assessment of reliability. In this case the passage of time between the alleged events and making of the application further affects the weight that can be attached to the parties’ recollections. I have reservations about the reliability of both parties’ recall. Unlawful entry February 2023

The evidence of the parties is directly conflicting. The tenant relies on the recollection of an associate who could not recall the exact date and assumed the identity of the person who entered the room. The landlord denies visiting in February 2023 and instead recalls visiting with the tenants consent later in the year. Given the uncertainty as to the date on which the incident is said to have occurred, I am not satisfied there has been an unlawful entry. Unlawful entry April 2024

To place the notice on the table in the kitchen the landlord would have entered the property. The issue is whether they entered without the consent of the tenant. The landlord states the door was open and they were given permission, the tenant states the door was closed and they did not give permission. There is no independent evidence resolving this conflict. The tenant has the onus of proving the claim. I am not satisfied that the entry was unlawful. Interference on or about 01 April 2024

The evidence does not establish that the painter required the furniture to be moved. Only the ceiling was to be painted. The tenant’s associate was unable to say what had been said, although anticipated that the painter would move any furniture. Even if the tenant believed that they should move the furniture the inconvenience of doing so does not in my view amount to an unreasonable interference. Unlawful entry / interference 24 December 2020

The tenant agreed to the landlord entering the property. Although they expressed that it was inconvenient there is no evidence of coercion or unlawful threats or pressure. There has been no unlawful entry. There is an unresolved dispute as to who was present. I am not satisfied that the small amount of time spent installing replacement smoke alarms or in the bathroom applying sealant amounted to an unreasonable interference.

In relation to the alleged unlawful entry or interferences: 6 October 2018, (driveway repairs), 30 August 2019 (toilet inspection request, visit delayed), 19 February 2020 (request declined), 27 May 2020 (request declined), 04 October 2020, (visit agreed but did not occur), 23 December 2022 (delivery of grass seed), 29 April 2024 (deck work).

The driveway repairs, deck work, and delivery of grass seed were all tasks that did not involve entry into the premises. Regarding the requests for visits that were declined or did not proceed, as well as visits the tenant agreed to or that were proposed but did not occur, these do not amount to unlawful entry, nor am I satisfied that Individually or collectively they amount to an interference.

The tenancy spanned twelve years. The alleged incidents were infrequent and were not the subject of complaint at the material time. Interference amounting to harassment – camper van.

The evidence establishes that at most the landlord inquired about the campervan on one occasion. Doing so on one occasion does not amount to harassment. Interference amounting to harassment – lawns.

[The tenant’s representative] stated that the landlord made a number of comments about the lawn. [Witness 1] recalled only the one comment. I prefer [Witness 1’s] evidence. The one comment about mower height does not amount to harassment. Interference amounting to harassment – allegations of smoking inside.

The landlord’s comments about smelling smoke and ceiling discolouration arose in the context of inspections. Raising concerns about potential smoking inside the property at inspections does not amount to harassment.

I am not satisfied that individually or cumulatively any of the matters raised amount to an unreasonable interference or harassment.

In my opinion, this appears to be a case, similar to Smith v Floris, where a clash of personalities has significantly influenced the tenant’s perception of events, rather than one involving conduct by the landlord that necessarily amounted to interference or harassment. This was clearly evident from the parties’ interactions during the hearing.

The onus is on the tenant to prove the claims on the balance of probabilities. In this case, I am not satisfied that the landlord unlawfully entered the premises, interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenancy, or engaged in harassment. The claims are dismissed. Failed to comply with Healthy Homes Standards and Insulation and Smoke Alarm Regulations

Under this claim the tenant alleges that the landlord failed to provide working smoke alarms, ensure the bathroom had adequate ventilation, provide an approved form of heating, ensure the property met the insulation standards, and provide a compliance statement. Smoke alarms

The tenant states that at the commencement of the tenancy there were smoke alarms in the lounge and hallway close to the bedrooms. They assumed the alarms were working.

On or about 29 April 2019, they state there was a fire in the kitchen where an electric jug had “melted” after being left on one of the stove elements. The alarm in the lounge did not activate. The tenant advised the landlord verbally.

The tenant stated that on or about 19 July 2019, the landlord arranged for a contractor to visit the property to inspect the smoke alarms and insulation. Despite raising the issue on numerous occasions, the alarms were not replaced until 24 December 2020.

The landlord stated that they had not been advised of the fire until receiving the application. They stated that the contractor was part of a free service provided by a local company to check compliance with the smoke alarm and insulation regulations.

The landlord produced a certificate provided by the contractor dated 14 August 2019 stating that the property complied with the smoke alarm regulations but recommending that ceiling insulation required a top up.

They state that the smoke generated from the fire may have been insufficient to trigger the nearby alarm.

The tenant stated that the contractor looked at the alarms but did not test them. The tenant also questioned, if they complied, why the landlord had changed the alarms on 24 December 2020.

The landlord states that they wanted to change them for a later model. Bathroom ventilation

The tenant states that the bathroom has insufficient ventilation. The tenant states that a part of the shower obstructs the window. There is a fan in the bathroom, although there is a dispute as to when it was installed. The first time this issue was raised with the landlord was in the application. Heating in main living room.

When the tenancy commenced on 06 December 2012, there was no form of heating installed in the main living room. This is not disputed.

The tenant states that about one month after the commencement of the tenancy, they asked about heating but were told “it is what it is.” The tenant states they purchased a portable gas heater and continued to raise the issue but that nothing was done.

The landlord stated that they offered to install heating, but the tenant declined, and the issue was not raised again. The landlord stated that they installed a heat pump in 2019, but that the tenant said they would not use it as it was too expensive to run. The landlord produced invoices in support.

The tenant stated that, regardless of whether they intended to use a heat pump, the landlord was required to install an approved form of heating. Ceiling insulation and providing insulation details.

The tenant states that on or about 18 July 2019 they believed that the ceiling insulation may not be compliant, as it had been installed in 2014.

The tenant sent the landlord a text message stating that an insulation top up may be required. In the same message, the tenant also stated: “you are required by law to supply all your tenants with a copy of the insulation certification or face a $500 fine. So, if u haven’t done so do it email everyone a copy.”

No photographs of the ceiling space have been produced, and the tenant has not personally inspected the area. The tenant relies on the compliance certificate dated 14 August 2019, which they state shows that the ceiling insulation is not sufficiently thick and required a top up.

The tenant states that the text message amounted to a request for a certificate of compliance.

The landlord states that on 27 May 2021, with the help of [Witness 2], they installed additional ceiling insulation.

[The tenant’s representative] stated that she had been at the property at the material time and no insulation had been installed.

The landlord stated that they did not provide a certificate after installing further insulation because none had been requested. They did not view the text as a request for a certificate, but rather as advice, [details deleted].

They state that the certificate “recommended” a top up, and did not state that the insulation was in fact non-compliant.

The landlord called [Witness 2] to give evidence. The witness confirmed their written statement. They stated that they had been at the property with the landlord and had helped install ceiling insulation. He stated that the tenant had been there when they arrived but left shortly afterward.

The tenant stated that they had never met [Witness 2]. Law

Section 45(1) (bb) requires the landlord to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS), which set out the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping for residential rental properties.

Under section 45(1)(c) and the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, the landlord must provide and maintain working smoke alarms. The regulations require all rental properties to have adequate ceiling and underfloor insulation meeting minimum R-values. The insulation must be maintained in a reasonable condition.

The insulation and smoke alarm Regulations have applied to all rental properties since 01 July 2019.

Apart from the regulations relating to insulation and smoke alarms the HHS standards for this tenancy applied came into effect on 01 July 2025.

Landlords have been required to include a statement in new tenancy agreements about the extent of insulation in the property, as well as compliance with smoke alarm regulations. This requirement is set out in the Regulations.

During the tenancy, the property was also subject to the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR), which also set out requirements for residential properties.

Regulation 6 of the HIR states: “Every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating”.

Regulation 9 of the HIR states that every bathroom shall have at least one window opening to external air unless other means of ventilation are provided. Analysis and decision

There is no evidence that the smoke alarms were not working. There was no evidence regarding the distance between the nearest smoke alarm in the lounge and the stove on which the jug was located. I accept the landlord’s evidence that any smoke generated may have been insufficient to activate the alarm.

The regulations require a smoke alarm to be located in the hallway near the bedrooms. There is no evidence that this requirement was not met.

The tenant stated that the contractor who completed the certificate dated 14 August 2019 looked at the alarms but did not test them, thereby casting doubt on the certificate’s accuracy. However, the tenant also relies on the same certificate as primary evidence that the property did not comply with the insulation regulations.

The tenant has not inspected the ceiling space and produced no photographs taken at the material time. There is a direct conflict in the evidence between the landlord, who states that additional insulation was installed, and the tenant who states that it was not. I accept the evidence of [Witness 2] that insulation was installed. The onus rests with the tenant. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. The claim is dismissed.

For tenancies that commenced prior to 1 July 2016, landlords were not required to provide details of compliance with the insulation and smoke alarm regulations in the tenancy agreement at the time the tenancy began. The requirement to include this information only applies to new tenancy agreements entered into on or after 1 July 2016. The claim is dismissed.

The photograph of the window in the bathroom shows that it is in fact not obstructed by the shower to an extent that air flow is compromised. The bathroom also has a fan. The claim is dismissed.

At the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord was in breach of their obligations under the HIR to provide an approved form of heating in the main living room. However, the tenant was aware of this within one month of the tenancy commencing on 06 December 2012.

The claim was filed on 19 September 2024, which is more than 6 years after the date on which the tenant knew of the act or omission on which the claim is based. The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages. The Limitation Act applies. The claim is dismissed. Retaliatory termination notice

The tenant claims that the notice to terminate the tenancy issued on 17 April 2024 was retaliatory, as it had been issued either wholly or partly as a result of their exercising their rights under the Act.

The tenant states that the issue with their associate’s van at the property was one of the reasons for terminating the tenancy. The tenant also stated that while the landlord had been painting the ceiling, they complained about the landlord’s maintenance priorities, noting that the landlord had had the opportunity to replace the vinyl flooring in the kitchen but had not done so. They state the landlord had become annoyed, left, and returned later that day with the notice.

The landlord denies this and states that it was issued because they wished to sell the property, which subsequently occurred. The landlord denied that the campervan was an issue stating that they had only mentioned it briefly on a previous occasion. They state they had been painting at the property for three days in April 2024. During this time there were general conversations with the tenant, which included selling the property. The landlord stated that the tenant became angry and told the landlord to ‘piss off.” The landlord stated that they left at around 2pm. While away, they discussed the future of the property with the co -landlord. The landlord stated that they were well over retirement age, had had the property for some time as an investment, and decided due to health issues that they wanted to sell up. They gave notice, [details deleted]. The tenant denies this and denies telling the landlord to “piss off.”

[The tenant’s representative] stated that they had been present on one of the days and had heard the tenant raise concerns about the condition of the property. Law

Section 54 provides that a tenant may apply to the Tribunal for a declaration that a landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy is retaliatory.

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove more likely than not that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.

In the case of Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA 244/88, 03 November 1988, the Court held that a notice of termination given for genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory.

A landlord’s decision to sell the property is not, by itself, a retaliatory notice. If the landlord can show a genuine intention to sell and the notice is given for that reason, it will not be considered retaliatory. However, if there is evidence that the real reason for the notice is to punish or deter the tenant from exercising their rights, the Tribunal will consider the timing and circumstances. Analysis and decision

There is again a direct conflict in the evidence between the tenant and landlord. I place limited weight on [The tenant’s representative]’s evidence. During the hearing, it was apparent that her relationship with the landlord had deteriorated significantly, which may have affected the reliability of her evidence.

The timing of the notice, shortly after the landlord left the property raises a question as to whether the notice was in response to issues raised by the tenant. However, the notice stated that the landlord intended selling the property, which then occurred a few months after the end of the tenancy. An intention to sell, followed by an actual sale, is in my view a genuine basis for termination.

The onus rests with the tenant to establish that the notice was retaliatory. I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenants exercising their rights or making a complaint. The claim is dismissed. Failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition and comply with all health and safety requirements.

The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition and has failed to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety that apply to the property.

The tenant states that, as a result of these failures, they suffered serious injury. That the tenant has suffered injury during the tenancy and has had periods of unwellness is not in dispute. The issue is whether this was caused by a failure by the landlord to meet their obligations. Law

Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.

In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, 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”.

Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence.

To establish a breach, the tenant must prove: • The nature of the defect amounting to a failure to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, • When it was first brought to the attention of the landlord (unless it was a defect that should have been obvious to a reasonable person during a routine inspection), • Whether the landlord failed to investigate and remedy any defect within a reasonable time in the circumstances.

The best evidence establishing a breach are photographs taken at the relevant time, on which the Tribunal can make an independent assessment ,14-day notices, texts, emails etc confirming when the issue was raised. Railing back doorstep

The property is a three-bedroom, single-level, fibrolite-clad dwelling built in the 1980s.

The back door is elevated above ground level. Wooden steps lead from the driveway to a small, covered deck. The tenant states that the deck had no safety railing, and that in February 2015, while carrying washing and opening the door, they fell off the deck. They claim the configuration was inherently dangerous and required a railing.

The landlord states that the deck is less than one metre high and did not require a railing when the property was constructed in 1986.

The tenant stated that the ground beneath the deck had subsided, and the deck is now more than one metre high. This was disputed by the landlord. The landlord installed a rail a short time after the fall and states that this issue had not been brought to their attention prior to the accident. Analysis and decision

This claim is made more than six years after the fall. The claim is statute barred. In any event, I am not satisfied on the evidence that the deck was required to have a railing at the time of construction. There is insufficient evidence that the deck exceeded one metre in height at the material time. The issue had not been raised with the landlord prior to the fall. I am not satisfied that the deck was inherently defective or that the landlord failed to meet their obligations. Front deck

There is a small covered wooden deck at the front of the property, in front of a ranchslider which serves as the front door. The tenant stated that, on or about October 2022, they tripped on rotten boards and fell. The tenant stated that they had raised the issue during inspections and that the landlord had blamed the tenant for the damage and said they would get around to repairing it. The tenant produced photographs and stated that they had called the landlord from the hospital.

The landlord denies that the condition of the deck was raised as an issue. They accept that they replaced parts of the deck in April 2023, but state that this was unrelated to the accident, which they had not been advised of. They note that there were two minor areas of deterioration on the edge of two boards, but these were not areas walked on, and did not affect the structural integrity of the deck or make it unsafe. Analysis and decision

There is a direct conflict in the evidence as to whether the condition of the deck was raised prior to April 2023. I am not satisfied that the issue was brought to the attention of the landlord. The photographs show limited areas of deterioration and do not show any structural issues. I am not satisfied the deck was in an unreasonable state of repair or that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. Steps to front deck

The tenant states that the steps to the front deck were rotten and that they also required a handrail. The tenant claims that the landlord offered to install a handrail and fix the steps but never did.

The landlord states that the photographs do not show any issue with the steps. They state the front deck is just 450 cm off the ground and, when constructed in 1986, the steps did not require a handrail. The landlord states the matter was never raised. Analysis and decision

I am not satisfied that the matter was raised as an issue. The photographs do not show any rot or structural issue. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the deck is approximately 450cm above the ground and, at the time of construction, that no handrail was required. Laundry floor

The tenant states that, on or about December 2016, the hot water cylinder leaked, causing the vinyl flooring in the laundry and surrounding area to swell and lift. They state that while the cylinder was repaired, and despite insurance paying out, the floor was never fixed and remained in that condition despite the issue being raised on numerous occasions. The tenant states the room smelled stale and musty, the floor was uneven, and that this unevenness damaged their washing machine which they had to replace twice.

The landlord stated that while the cylinder was replaced, no issue had been raised concerning the floor. The landlord denied that the floor in the surrounding area was rotten and said that the damage shown in the photographs can be described as fair wear and tear. They deny that insurance paid out for the floor, stating that insurance only offered to replace a small piece of vinyl on the floor in the cupboard, but it was not worth the excess. The landlord also states that they were never advised about the washing machines.

The landlord provided photographs taken by the assessor, although the tenant is of the opinion that their own photographs are better. Analysis and decision

There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether issues with the flooring were raised following the replacement of the hot water cylinder. Having viewed the photographs, the vinyl is lifting at the edges and there is some staining consistent with age and wear typical of a laundry in a property of this age. I am not satisfied that the flooring was not in reasonable condition or that the landlord failed to respond appropriately. Floor in kitchen

The tenant states that the vinyl flooring in front of the fridge was lifting, with ripples and rolls. The tenant stated that in 2016 they slipped and suffered a serious injury. They state that they raised the issue at the same time the hot water cylinder was replaced but were told that “it would have to wait.” The pre-tenancy inspection report records some pre-existing damage to the flooring in that area.

The landlord noted that the damage was beneath where the tenant’s fridge had been and was unlikely to have been a factor in any fall. Analysis and decision

This claim is made more than six years after the fall. The claim is statute barred. In any event, the pre tenancy inspection report shows the damage pre-existing and located beneath the refrigerator. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the damage would have been unlikely to have been a factor in the tenant’s fall. Carpet

The tenant states that the carpet in the lounge where it met the vinyl flooring in the kitchen was damaged and posed a trip hazard. A photograph produced shows some small carpet nails exposed where the carpet has come away from the trim. The tenant states that they raised the matter on numerous occasions from 2019, but the landlord blamed the tenant’s cats. The tenant stated that after they mentioned it was a trip hazard, the landlord placed a mat over the area.

The landlord stated that they had witnessed a cat scratching at the area. They state that it had been repaired once but could not be repaired again. When it was raised as a possible trip hazard, they accepted the tenant’s suggestion to place a mat over the area. Analysis and decision

The photographs show damage at the edge of the carpet where it meets the trim. I accept that the matter was raised. When it was described as a potential trip hazard the landlord agreed to place a mat over it. On the evidence the damage appears minor and consistent with fair wear and tear over time. On the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. Floor by back door

The tenant has produced photographs of what they claim to be exposed nails in the floor near the back door. The tenant states that, despite multiple messages complaining about the matter, nothing happened.

The landlord stated they had removed the threshold, which had been screwed down, not nailed. The landlord produced a photograph showing that it had been screwed in place. They denied that the matter had ever been raised until the application. Analysis and decision

The landlords photograph shows that the threshold is secured with screws rather than nails. The tenant’s photographs show nails. However, there is a conflict in the evidence as to whether this issue was raised during the tenancy. I am not satisfied that the landlord was notified of the defect during the tenancy. On the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. Garage door

The tenant stated that in 2018 one of the springs on the tilt garage door came off and was repaired soon after, with what the tenant describes as a temporary fix. The tenant states that around May 2022 the door failed and struck them on the head, resulting in a significant head injury. The tenant stated that they reported it to the landlord and that it was fixed. The tenant also stated they had raised the issue multiple times between 2018 and 2022.

The landlord agreed that the door had been repaired in 2018 but did not view it as a temporary repair. They recalled it being raised again in May 2022 and that it was repaired. They state they had not been advised of any accident. Analysis and decision

There are no photographs of the door, and it is not possible to make an objective assessment. There is no documentary evidence recording any ongoing concerns being raised between 2018 and May 2022. There is insufficient evidence that the repair in 2018 was temporary or inadequate, or that the landlord failed to respond in a reasonable time once notified. On the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. Front gates

The tenant states that during the tenancy the front gate was replaced because it had dropped at the hinges. The tenant states that the new gates were also too heavy, dropped, and were difficult to operate. The tenant stated that in 2020 they injured their hand while operating the gates and produced a photograph of the injury. The text messages provided are undated; one refers to a hand injury about a month prior. The tenant stated that the matter was only remedied when they purchased a spring-loaded wheel and installed it themselves in 2023, for which the landlord reimbursed them.

The landlord stated that they had attempted to repair the gates but had been unsuccessful. The landlord stated that they had offered to change the gates for a lighter farm type gate made from metal, but that the tenant preferred a wooden one. They state they were aware of the injury, but only sometime after it occurred. They stated that they had installed the same type of wheel prior to 2020, but the tenant had been unhappy, noting that the tenant then purchased and installed the same type of wheel.

The tenant denied that the landlord had installed a wheel. Analysis and decision

There is no documentary evidence of the matter being raised between 2012 and 2020. The text messages produced are undated and lack sufficient detail. There is no clear evidence showing the nature or extent of any defect with the gate. On the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. Bottom step back stairs

The tenant states that the bottom step on the back stairs was rotten. They state they had raised this with the landlord on multiple occasions. They claim they fell through the step, injured their foot, and reported this to the landlord in March 2024. The landlord then visited the property, took a photograph, and repaired the step. The tenant has referred to a photograph of the repaired step produced by the landlord, and states that the steps above that repaired are indicative of the condition of the step prior to repair.

The landlord denies that the issue was previously raised. They state that upon being advised that the step had been damaged, they visited shortly afterward and repaired it. They also state they were not advised that the tenant had injured themselves.

The landlord denies that it was raised. They state upon being advised that the step had been damaged they visited shortly afterward and repaired it. They state they were not advised that the tenant had injured themselves. Analysis and decision

There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether concerns about the step were raised prior to March 2024. There is no photograph of the step before it was repaired. Although the other steps show signs of weathering, I am not satisfied that they show any obvious signs of structural failure. There is insufficient evidence that it had been raised prior to breaking. The landlord attended shortly after being notified and repaired the step. I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond within a reasonable time. Pathway at bottom of back stairs

The tenant has produced photographs taken in 2024 of the area of concrete path at the bottom of the stairs to the back door, which they state is a trip hazard and floods when it rains. They stated that when they moved into the property, the area had been covered by a mat that was later moved. The tenant stated that they had raised this with the landlord multiple times in text messages and verbally, and that they had suffered falls and injuries as a result.

The landlord stated the area was the same as it had been in 2012 and denied that it had ever been covered with a mat. They state it had never been raised before the application, and that there had been no texts, emails, or notices about the issue. Analysis and decision

The photographs show a small depression in the concrete path. These are not uncommon in concrete paths of this age. There is no evidence that it was raised by the tenant during the tenancy. On the evidence I am not satisfied that the condition of the pathway amounted to a failure to maintain the property. If the tenant fell in the area, there is insufficient evidence to establish that any fall was caused by a failure on the part of the landlord to meet their obligations. Guttering system

The tenant states that the guttering at the front of the property was inadequate and that water regularly fell onto the deck, causing damage. The tenant produced short videos taken at night over a period of time showing water spilling over the gutter. The tenant stated that a nearby tree may have been depositing leaves in the gutter, but that the guttering had only been cleaned twice during the entire tenancy.

The landlord states the guttering is internal and contains holes designed to help the guttering cope with heavy rain. These are not defects but design features. The landlord noted that the videos had been taken during heavy rainfall. They dispute that the gutters had not been cleaned regularly. The landlord stated that they had trimmed a nearby tree but noted that the tenant had been reluctant because it provided privacy. They state the issue was only raised after they gave the tenant notice. Analysis and decision

The videos produced by the tenant show overflowing during periods of heavy rainfall. There is no evidence of damaged gutters or gutters full of debris. The landlord’s explanation as to the design of the gutters is plausible. It is common knowledge that even the most efficient guttering may be unable to cope with heavy rainfall, it does not mean that it is defective. On the evidence, I am not satisfied that the guttering system was defective or that the landlord failed to maintain it in a reasonable state of repair. Ranchslider

The tenant states that the ranchslider was difficult to operate. The tenant stated that they advised the landlord around February 2019. The landlord unsuccessfully attempted to repair it in May 2020. A contractor then visited in June 2020 and repaired the door. The tenant states that the landlord attempted to blame them for causing the damage by installing a security bolt. The tenant states that they did not install the bolt until 2022.

The landlord stated there was no record of the matter being raised in 2019 and that it had been dealt with soon after it was raised in May 2020. Analysis and decision

There is no documentary evidence that the tenant raised the issue in February 2019. The contractors invoice suggests that the repair in June 2020 related to fair wear and tear. The evidence supports that the matter was addressed when brought to the landlord’s attention. I am not satisfied that there was an unreasonable delay. Carpet bugs

The tenant states that when they moved into the property in 2012, the landlord told them that the carpet in the bedrooms would be replaced. This did not occur. In 2015, the tenant noticed carpet beetle damage and showed the landlord this at an inspection in 2016. The tenant states that the landlord again agreed to replace the carpet but did not do so. The tenant produced a text message sent to the landlord in October 2023 raising issues with the carpet. In February 2024, the landlord arranged for treatment.

The landlord stated that the carpet was around fifteen years old at the start of the tenancy, newer in the lounge, but in reasonable condition for its age. The landlord denied that there had ever been a promise to replace the carpet. The landlord accepted that they had been shown what appeared to be carpet beetle damage in November 2022 but stated that the damage was largely confined to the second bedroom and, in that room, was mostly concealed under furniture. The landlord stated that there had been discussions with the tenant about how best to address the matter. As the tenant suffered from a respiratory condition, they were reluctant to have chemical treatment carried out, although this ultimately took place in February 2024. The landlord states that the tenant’s photographs of the carpet were taken after they had moved their furniture and did not reflect the state of the carpet as it appeared during the tenancy.

The tenant referred to a text message in August 2018 where the landlord asked if they could visit and measure the carpet, stating that they would not have done so if there was not an issue. Analysis and decision

There is conflicting evidence as to whether there was a promise to replace the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence on which to make a proper assessment of the overall condition of the carpet. The photographs provided by both parties are not of particularly good quality. The photographs show damage largely confined to one of the bedrooms, primarily in a corner beneath furniture, along and edge where the carpet meets a skirting board, and inside a wardrobe. When the presence of carpet beetle was raised the landlord acted appropriately. I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations. Fence

Around November 2018, there was an incident where a vehicle crashed through the wooden boundary fence. The tenant stated that a temporary barricade was erected by the landlord the day after, with an insurance claim accepted a week later, but the fence was not repaired until February 2019. The tenant has produced a photograph of the temporary barricade, which they state was inadequate. The tenant states they raised concerns, but nothing was done. The tenant also stated that the area had a significant gang presence and was one of the worst crime and drug areas in the city. The tenant was unable to provide any messages sent to the landlord. The tenant has referred to photographs taken by the landlord showing the fence in its damaged state in November 2018 and repaired in December 2019.

The landlord states that the insurance claim was accepted in December 2018 to replace the entire fence, and that they advised the tenant work would start after Christmas. They stated that they purchased the materials after Christmas and completed the fence around Easter 2019. The photograph dated December 2019 is a general photo of the new fence taken some time after it had been built. They did not view the time taken as unreasonable, noting that they had replaced the entire fence. They dispute that the temporary repair was inadequate and also state that it had not been raised as an issue. Analysis and decision

A temporary barricade was erected promptly following the incident. While not aesthetically pleasing, it appears to be adequate securing the boundary. The insurance process commenced, and the fence was replaced within several months. This was not unreasonable. There is no evidence of any concerns being raised by the tenant apart from a question as to when work would commence. I am not satisfied the landlord has breached their obligations. Back door lock

The tenant states that around 2022, an attempt was made to force entry through the back door, which caused damage to the lock and resulted in the door becoming difficult to operate. The tenant stated they disassembled and reassembled the lock and repaired a tear in the fly screen.

The landlord denied that they had been advised at the time but stated that the tenant had informed them after the incident, and that they had fixed the lock. The landlord stated during a following visit they tightened the lock. Analysis and decision

There are no photographs of the lock showing the nature of the defect. The tenant states that they disassembled and repaired the lock themselves. I am not satisfied that the landlord was advised at the time or that they have failed to meet their obligations. Toilet

The tenant stated that a leak had developed behind the toilet and that they had raised this with the landlord.

The landlord stated that initially the pipe to the cistern in the wall had leaked and been repaired. There had then been a second leak in a different area, which was also repaired. The landlord stated that in November 2020 they had replaced the floor. The landlord denies any unreasonable delay. Analysis and decision

Neither party was able to say when the leak had been reported, although the first leak may have been in 2018. There is no evidence on which to make an objective assessment of the damage. There is insufficient evidence to establish unreasonable delay or ongoing damage that was left unaddressed. I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately or otherwise breached their obligations. Bathroom floor

The tenant stated that the bathroom floor was rotten. They state that at the same time the landlord repaired the toilet floor, they also repaired the floor in the bathroom, which is next door. The tenant stated they could not use either room for about two weeks and were forced to use a bucket as a toilet.

The landlord stated that they had removed and replaced the toilet on the same day. They stated that they only removed the vanity in the bathroom and reinstated it three days later. They state that at all times the tenant had access to the shower. Analysis and decision

There is conflicting evidence as to the duration of the work on the two rooms. The landlord states that the toilet was removed and replaced the same day, with access to the shower maintained throughout. There is insufficient evidence to support the tenants claim that both rooms were unusable. On the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. Hole in bathroom floor

The tenant states that there was a hole in the bathroom floor which despite being reported was not repaired.

The landlord denies the claim. Analysis and decision

There is no photographic or documentary evidence concerning the existence of a hole. In the absence of this evidence there is insufficient to establish a breach. Hot water cylinder

The tenant states that the hot water cylinder leaked in 2016 but that nothing was done about it until 2019.

The landlord states that in 2016 the tenant complained about the water pressure and the ajax valve was replaced. The hot water cylinder leaked in 2019 and was replaced soon afterward. Analysis and decision

The evidence shows that in 2016 an issue with the water pressure was addressed appropriately. The cylinder itself was replaced in 2019. There is insufficient evidence that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. Degrading paint

The tenant states that the interior paint was in a poor condition. The tenant has produced some photos showing minor peeling to ceilings. The tenant has produced a text message sent to the landlord in July 2019 noting flaking paint.

The landlord stated that the damage was minor, and cosmetic and in 2024 they had had a professional painter repaint the ceilings, who had stated that the ceiling had been damaged by cigarette smoking. Analysis and decision

The photographs show minor peeling to ceilings. There is no evidence of structural damage. The deterioration appears cosmetic. I am not satisfied that this amounted to a failure by the landlord to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair for its age. Shower head

The tenant stated that around June 2020 they had reported to the landlord that the shower head had been damaged. The landlord delivered a replacement shower head and asked if [The tenant’s representative] could install it. The tenant refused, stating that [The tenant’s representative] was disabled. The tenant stated they then put the shower head in a cupboard.

The landlord states that they gave the replacement shower head to [The tenant’s representative], who agreed to install it, as it would simply involve unscrewing the old one and screwing on the new one. The landlord stated they were never advised by the tenant that [The tenant’s representative] had changed her mind. The landlord states that when they worked on the shower later, they did not notice the shower head and assumed it had been replaced. The landlord stated that there was no sign of the shower head in a cupboard. Analysis and decision

A replacement shower head was provided by the landlord. There is a direct conflict of evidence as to whether [The tenant’s representative] agreed to install it and whether the landlord had been later advised that she would not. Both accuse the other of lying. The onus is on the tenant to establish the landlord failed to act appropriately. I am not satisfied that they have done so. Alarm

The tenant states that the property was advertised with an alarm system. They state that in 2017 they attempted to activate the alarm but discovered that it had been disconnected.

The landlord stated that when the tenant moved in, the tenant did not wish to use the alarm, and it was left in “sleep mode.” They have produced the pre- tenancy inspection report, which does not include the alarm as a chattel. The landlord stated that later the tenant complained that it was beeping, and around September 2019, the landlord agreed to have it disconnected. Analysis and decision

There is a direct conflict of evidence as to whether the alarm formed part of the tenancy. The pre inspection report does not record the alarm as a chattel. I am not satisfied that it was included in the tenancy, and that disconnection was a breach. No kitchen

The tenant stated that shortly after the commencement of the tenancy, the kitchen was ripped out and replaced, and that they were without a kitchen for two months.

The landlord denies the allegation. Analysis and decision

The claim relates to events alleged to have occurred shortly after the tenancy commenced, and more than six years prior to the filing of the claim. The Limitation period applies. The claim is dismissed.

The landlord and tenant relationship appears to have been reasonable for much of the tenancy. Prior to entering the tenancy, the tenant had been in a stronger financial situation, [details deleted]. It was apparent that, over time, the tenant developed an underlying resentment regarding their circumstances. On several occasions during the hearing the tenant referred to the area in which the property is located as being one of the worst in the city, but that it was all they could afford at the time.

It is not surprising that the landlord ultimately wished to sell the property.

During the hearing, when the issue of evidential sufficiency was raised, the tenant stated that the primary reason for making their claim was the landlord’s seeking rent arrears, and that they did not expect to find themselves in this position.

Following the Case Management Conference, the landlord provided evidence in support of their claim and defence of those made against them. On the first day of the hearing the tenant provided a bundle of documents, which included both their own material and material provided by the landlord, which they sought to rely on.

Overall, the evidence is piecemeal. Both parties have struggled to provide a clear and reliable chronology. The documentary evidence is incomplete, with some undated or copied from other sources. Many of the photographs are of a limited quality and were not taken at the material time for the purpose of proving a claim. In several instances, the Tribunal was unable to make a proper independent assessment of the nature or extent of the alleged defect.

The tenant has retrospectively reviewed the entire twelve-year tenancy in an attempt to identify matters now said to amount to breaches. A number of the issues now relied upon do not appear to have been raised with the landlord at the time, and no 14-day notices were issued. The significant passage of time has affected the ability of both parties to establish a reliable and credible narrative.

The onus rested with the tenant to establish the alleged breaches. On the evidence before me, that onus has not been met.

There is no dispute that the tenant’s health declined during the tenancy and that they suffered falls resulting in injury. However, there is insufficient evidence to establish that those injuries were caused by any failure on the part of the landlord to meet their obligations.

A substantial portion of the tenant’s evidence consists of social media commentary by [The tenant’s representative] expressing opinions about the property. There is no evidence that these comments were communicated to the landlord at the time, or that they served as notice. The material also includes text message exchanges in which personal opinions about the landlord are shared. During the hearing, [The tenant’s representative] displayed animosity toward the landlord, which was not reciprocated. In the circumstances, her evidence carries limited weight.

The onus was on the tenant to prove these claims. The standard required the tenant to establish more likely than not that the landlord breached the terms of the agreement or the provisions of the Act. Having heard from the parties and witnesses, and having considered all of the written material, including photographs and videos, I am not satisfied that the tenant has established their claims. Accordingly, they are dismissed. Name suppression

Both parties seek name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Section 95A (4) further provides the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, may order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.

I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the tenant.

Having regard to the tenant’s personal circumstances there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and to exercise the discretion in subsection 95A (4). Accordingly, I order suppression of the tenant’s name, [The tenant’s representative], and all witnesses.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5010109 — net $40.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 July 2024	$890.00	Rent arrears to 24 July 2024
Net award	$40.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$40.00