What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5018669 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2520 [Bond number suppressed] to [The

How much money was awarded in case 5018669?

Bathroom Light: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Breach Of Quiet: $9,572.86 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Extractor Fan: $1,350.00 awarded to tenant; Heat Pump: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Mouldy And Faulty: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Power: $2,320.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5018669?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5018669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12858557-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5018669 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2520 [Bond number suppressed] to [The

How much money was awarded in case 5018669?

Bathroom Light: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Breach Of Quiet: $9,572.86 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Extractor Fan: $1,350.00 awarded to tenant; Heat Pump: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Mouldy And Faulty: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Power: $2,320.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5018669?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5018669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12858557-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5018669 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5018669 — net $7,823.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Breach of quiet	$9,572.86		Breach of quiet
Rubbish removal	$100.00		Rubbish removal
Damage caused by dog	$500.00		Damage caused by dog
Carpet	$1,000.00		Carpet
Power	$2,320.70		Power
Heat pump		$800.00	Heat pump
Bathroom light		$500.00	Bathroom light
Mouldy and faulty		$500.00	Mouldy and faulty
extractor fan		$1,350.00	extractor fan
Total award	$13,493.56	$3,150.00
Net award	$7,823.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,823.56

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5018669 — net $7,823.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Breach of quiet	$9,572.86		Breach of quiet
Rubbish removal	$100.00		Rubbish removal
Damage caused by dog	$500.00		Damage caused by dog
Carpet	$1,000.00		Carpet
Power	$2,320.70		Power
Heat pump		$800.00	Heat pump
Bathroom light		$500.00	Bathroom light
Mouldy and faulty		$500.00	Mouldy and faulty
extractor fan		$1,350.00	extractor fan
Total award	$13,493.56	$3,150.00
Net award	$7,823.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,823.56

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2520 [Bond number suppressed] to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The Landlord/s] $7,823.56 immediately as per the table below. ItemLandlordTenant Heat pump$800 Bathroom light$500 Mouldy and faulty extractor fan $500 Breach of quiet enjoyment $1350 1 This order has been recalled and is now reissued, due to a typographical error in that the amount for power was left of the table in order 2. Rent to the end of the tenancy $9,572.86 Rubbish removal$100 Damage caused by dog$500 Carpet$1,000 Power 2 $2,320.70 $13,493.56$3150.00 Total to be paid by tenant to landlord (before bond) $10,343.56 Less Bond$2520.00 Total payable by tenant to landlord $7823.56

Reasons

The tenant has applied for compensation for breach by the landlord of its obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
Much of the tenant’s initial application (which originally went before another adjudicator) related to a breach of quiet enjoyment claim arising out of conduct of the landlord, disruption caused by its tradespeople and the conduct of another tenant located in another premises also owned by the landlord. In the course of the various hearings, the tenant’s application has expanded to include multiple “maintenance issues”.
The landlord had initially only applied for termination for non-payment of rent and unpaid power bills but following the tenant vacating the premises, it amended its application to seek compensation following the end of the tenancy. Brief history of the proceedings 2 This item was ordered in favour of the landlord by way of the Order dated 8 December however due to a typographical error, was omitted from this table.
Following the tenant filing her application on 28 September 2024, the matter was set down for hearing on 15 November 2024. In the meantime, the landlord filed its application for rent arrears. That application came before the prior adjudicator.
On 15 November 2024, that adjudicator made an order that rent owing by the tenant as at 15 November 2024 was then $6,880 and adjourned the balance of the matters for further hearing.
The tenant later claimed that she was only given a short time at the hearing to accept this figure or challenge it. She felt rushed and claimed she did not fully address her opposition with the adjudicator.
Prior to the next hearing, the tenant complained about the prior adjudicator’s treatment of her during the first hearing. The adjudicator has then treated that complaint as an application for a rehearing and he then set down all of the applications for rehearing before a fresh adjudicator, which was me.
The matter therefore only came before me for the first time on 16 April 2025. Only a limited amount of time had been allowed and I treated the matter as a case management conference. I made directions and set it down for a hearing.
Before the next hearing, there was then an inspection of the property by the property manager. That took place in May 2025 and it led to a number of repairs, which disposed of some of the matters.
The balance of the substantive matters were then set down for hearing in July 2025 but just prior to that hearing, the tenant sought and obtained an adjournment on the grounds of illness.
The matter then was allocated a substantive hearing date on 12 September 2025. In these submissions, I refer to this is the first hearing.
By the time of the first hearing, the tenancy had come to an end.
The tenant raised a very long list of “maintenance issues” as part of her claim. Most of these were not articulated before the Tribunal until the outset of the first hearing. There was therefore not enough time to deal with all matters at the first hearing, which was taken up with the evidence and submissions on the maintenance issues.
A further hearing was then convened to hear from the parties on the rest of the issues.
The second hearing was held on 5 December. Burden of proof
I begin by noting that the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations as to the burden of proof on a party brining an application before it. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. They must establish that what they are claiming is more probable than not.
Independent witnesses, corroborating documents, reports and photographs can be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
If is for the party bringing the application to direct the Tribunal to the relevant evidence and submissions. It is not for the Tribunal to extract the evidence and submissions from the information filed.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke, in practical terms this means that: 3 ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I now deal first with the tenant’s claims and then with the landlord’s claims. The tenant’s claims
The tenant raised a wide range of claims in her application, as has been noted above. A consistent theme of the landlord’s submissions during the hearing was that most of these were only raised after the matter was already before the Tribunal.
As noted above, the tenant’s claims fall into two categories: a. The “maintenance issues”, b. Failure of the landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the landlord’s other tenant at the rear of the premises did not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises, c. Breach of quiet enjoyment as a result of: i.general conduct by the landlord towards her, and ii.the conduct of the tradespeople who were in her backyard for three months repairing a water leak, and abuse by the tenant at the rear studio premises.
At the commencement of the first hearing I asked the tenant to list all of the maintenance items that were still live and at issue between the parties. All 3 Kaipo v Clarke DC Waitakere TT 233/02, 12 April 2002, at [7]. evidence for both parties relating to each of the maintenance items was heard at the first hearing, as noted above. The premises
The tenant’s premises were a three-bedroom home located on a piece of land which contained a separate studio premises rented out to a separate tenant. The landlord of both premises is the same. The backyard was a shared area between both tenancies.
The tenancy started on 20 June 2022 and came to an end on 28 July 2025. The maintenance issues: Relevant law relating to breach of the landlord’s obligations of maintenance and repair.
Under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. A landlord must also comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 4
The obligation of the landlord to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage (see Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 5 ) Further, a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises and the need for repair. 6
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord's obligation is to then repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair. 7
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 6 Evidence and analysis
I now deal with each of the maintenance items in turn.
There were many maintenance issues raised in the application but at the first hearing, the tenant claimed the following to be the remaining live issues, which I now deal with as follows: 4 Section 45 of the RTA 5 DC Auckland CIV 2005 004 1762, at [28] 6 S 40(1)(d) of the RTA, Vu v Hutchings [2016 ] NZTT 4054247, at [13] 7 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009 085 1431, at [15] i.The tenant claims that one of the garage roller doors did not work, for most of the duration of the tenancy.
There were two roller doors. The tenant said one of the roller doors initially worked. She would use the garage to store personal items in there.
From around September 2022, she claims one of the roller doors seized up and would not work.
The tenant claims she told the landlord about the roller door in a visit by the landlord in 2022. The tenant did not then follow up about the roller door in August 2024 during an inspection.
It was then fixed in July 2025.
The tenant could get access to her belongings through a separate door, but claims she wanted to be able to park her car there and could not.
The landlord said that she did not get any complaint about the roller door until the case management conference in April this year.
The landlord said that there were in fact only three issues raised at the August 2024 inspection. These were: the ground was muddy on a rainy day, the bathroom light would not work and the heat pump would stop after 15 minutes. The landlord produced an electronic copy of the relevant report during the hearing which recorded these three items and this was also shown to the tenant.
The landlord said that it was therefore following the application being filed the landlord was made aware of the issue with the roller doors.
The burden of proof is on the tenant, as noted above. I am satisfied that at some point the roller door stop working as it was intended but the evidence does not establish that the tenant pointed this out to the landlord, seeking repair.
The landlord cannot repair something unless it is aware that it is faulty or broken.
I note that as with many of the other items dealt with below, this maintenance issue was not referred to in the tenant’s original application. This is consistent with the landlord’s submission that this matter was never raised until well after the application was filed, which point it was fixed.
The tenant’s claim in relation to the roller doors fails because it has not been proven that when it was pointed out to the landlord that it was faulty, the landlord failed to repair it. Further, no loss has been established. The tenant still had access to the garage and the other roller door worked. ii.The tenant claims that back door to the garage would jam during the cold months and would not open.
The tenant said this was an intermittent issue. She claims she told the landlord about this issue verbally at the August 2024 inspection.
The tenant then did not raise it again until the case management conference.
There was then the inspection on 6 May 2025 when the tenant pointed the issue out to the landlord.
The tenant says the issue was not fixed at the point the tenant left the premises.
The landlord says they were simply never informed about this issue until after the case management conference and the inspection on 6 May 2025. At that point, the landlord says that the door was not jammed.
The landlord denies that this was ever raised previously.
Once again, the tenants claim is not upheld. She produced no reports or photographs regarding the allegedly defective door. She has failed to prove that there was any defect with the door. She has also failed to prove she sustained any loss or that she pointed out this defect to the landlord and sought repair. iii.The front door top lock would often jam.
The tenant said this was also an intermittent fault. She said it would work, but it would be hard to lock sometimes. She claims she raised this for the first time at the inspection in August 2024. She claims she then next raised it at the case management conference.
She claims the issue was never fixed.
The landlord denies that this issue was raised in August 2024. The landlord said the lock was working, it was just that the tenant had pushed the key too firmly in and it would stick.
I find that the tenant has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that there is a fault with the lock. I also consider and find that in any event the tenant did not point this out to the landlord prior to the case management conference and the inspection in May 2025. iv.There were overgrown tree branches on the driveway which scraped the tenant’s car.
The tenant claims there were overgrown trees which would lean on to neighbour’s property and other trees would scrape the tenant’s bedroom.
The tenancy agreement contained the following preprinted term: .
Lawns and Gardens - The Tenant agrees to keep the Property including lawns and gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition free from rubbish and papers. The Tenant also agrees not to damage or remove any tree, shrub or bush from the Property. The Tenant agrees to keep the lawns and gardens weeded and in a generally tidy condition. The Tenant shall be responsible for the removal of garden waste.
Elsewhere on the agreement, the parties have hand ticked the box for the lawns and gardens to be the responsibility of the landlord.
The landlord accepts that it was its responsibility to do the lawns and gardens.
The landlord paid for a lawnmower to come every two to three weeks and claims it has discharged its obligations.
The landlord says that from its point of view, there was nothing wrong with the trees; they were not overgrown. The landlord said this issue was never raised until after the case management conference.
The tenant produced 6 photos which she claimed corroborated her claim but these simply showed a lot of foliage in a garden.
The tenant has not proven this claim. The evidence does not establish that the trees were overgrown at all, or that there was any loss. v.The sensor light outside the kitchen area did not work for around three years.
The tenant says she raised this issue verbally when she first moved in. She says that a month later in July 2022 she raised it again, verbally.
On 5 August 2022, she claims sent an email to the landlord following up about the heat pump and the sensor light. She produced that email electronically during the first hearing and later forwarded it to the Tribunal.
The tenant says the issue was eventually fixed on 23 May 2025. The issue was not included in the original application but was raised at the case management conference.
The landlord said it sent a tradesperson to the property to attend to a sensor light issue. It referred to an invoice dated 17 March 2023 from a tradesperson which referred to installing and replacing a sensor light. This invoice was produced electronically during the first hearing and emailed to the Tribunal. The replacement involved replacing the carport sensor light with two sensor lights, one facing the garage and one facing the kitchen.
The landlord said that after these repairs, she was never informed about the sensor light being faulty until after the case management conference in April this year.
The landlord said that when the issue was raised this year, it arranged for the sensor light to be replaced again (as well as a number of other repairs).
The tenant says the invoice relates to a sensor light for the studio unit and not the sensor light she was complaining about. The sensor light the tenant says she is talking about is another sensor light, being one that was closer to the kitchen.
The landlord accepts that the light that had earlier been fixed could have been the one to the studio unit.
Once again, I am simply not satisfied that the tenant has proven her case on the balance of probabilities. There is a lack of adequate corroboration of the tenant’s claim. The evidence establishes that some repairs were done to a sensor light and after the matter was raised again this year, the landlord has again moved promptly to attend to repairs. The landlord appears to have remedied the situation when asked and no loss has been proven.
I strongly incline to the view that this matter has only arisen for the first time following the application being filed and that prior to then, if it was an issue for the tenant she has not raised it. vi.There was a leak in the entry way. Whenever it rained heavily (4 or 5 times a year), the tenant would need to put a bucket or towel down.
The tenant first noticed this issue in around November 2022. She sent an email dated 25 November 2022 to the landlord asking about it. She said she did not put the problem in writing to the landlord after then. But she claims she followed up a few times with the landlord verbally.
Although the landlord sent a roofing contractor to inspect the issue on 18 November 2024, it was never fixed.
The landlord said she asked the tenant if the issue had repeated itself when it was first raised and was then not raised again until the application was filed.
The landlord’s roofing contractor identified the source of the leak and did repairs that day (November 2024) by applying some silicone.
The landlord said it was not raised again until the case management conference.
At that point the roofing contractor returned to the property and performed some more silicone repairs.
The tenant said that whatever the landlord did, it did not fix the issue.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven her claim. There was no evidence corroborating that this fault is ongoing other than her oral evidence. I am not satisfied that the work that was done by the landlord has not remedied this issue. The tenant has failed to prove her claim. vii.In the kitchen, the window was faulty.
In the kitchen there was one large sliding window which could only slide open from one side, but not the other.
The tenant claims she first raised it with the landlord in July 2022, verbally. She said that nothing was done to fix it. She did not raise it again until the case management conference in 2025. She claims that the issue was never repaired.
She accepted that the window opens but only from one side.
The landlord said that she believed this issue was repaired after the May 2025 inspection. It was fixed at the time the new tenant moved in and it was likely fixed by CRC spray.
The tenant has failed to establish this claim on the balance of probabilities. I have no evidence that the window was not functional but even on the evidence I do have, the tenant accepts that the window would open but only from one side. I would therefore not be satisfied as to what loss the tenant has suffered. The kitchen could still be aired by the window opening from one side. viii.There were no markings on the dials on the oven and the stove. For 6 months the tenants had to try and work how to switch it on.
The tenant says she complained about this issue verbally about a month after moving in. The issue is that the markings on the dials on the oven and the stove have rubbed off and it is hard to see how to turn the oven on to the required temperature. The tenant says she complained about this in November 2022.
The landlord then attended at the property and showed the tenant how to switch the oven on, but the tenant thought it was unsafe and so said she did not from that point use the oven at all.
The tenant next complained about the issue following the case management conference in 2025 and she says it was never fixed.
The landlord says the tenant had no problem using the oven and only raised it opportunistically at the case management conference. She says that when the tenant moved out, there was clear evidence the oven had been used and she produced a photograph corroborating that.
The tenant offered no explanation about why the oven was dirty.
I do not accept the tenant’s evidence on this point. I prefer the evidence of the landlord, corroborated by the photograph of the dirty oven. Ovens do not get dirty unless they are used. The state of the oven suggest that the oven had indeed been used by the tenant. This appears to be one of a number of issues only raised by the tenant after the application was filed.
Further, I am not satisfied that the tenant complained about this issue to the landlord after being shown how to use the oven.
This aspect of the tenant’s claim has not been proven on the balance of probabilities. ix.The heat pump was not installed until October 2022, four months after the tenant moved in.
The tenant said she was told verbally that a heat pump would be installed before she moved in. The tenancy agreement referred to a heat pump in the healthy homes statement.
The landlord says it was installed on 4 September 2022. The invoice relating to the installation was dated 18 September 2022. The landlord does not have the invoice and did not produce it.
The landlord said that due to the pitched ceiling and the high roof there was a higher level of heat pump that needed to be installed. The landlord claims that the tenant is only raising this issue as an afterthought. She claims that the tenant has not previously complained about this.
The tenant denies strongly that it was installed in September 2022. She says it was later, by approximately one month. She says there was no other source of heating at the property and the premises was very cold.
The evidence establishes that the heat pump was not in the property at the time the tenancy commenced and that the landlord agree to install a heat pump. I cannot be satisfied on the quality of the evidence provided as to when the heat pump was in fact installed but I consider it appropriate to award compensation for the lack of a heat pump on the global sum of $800. I accept that the property would have been colder than the tenant expected during these months.
The landlord must pay the tenant $800 for a breach of its agreement to install the heat pump. x.There were broken bamboo blinds installed at the property that did not work.
The tenant claimed that there were many broken blinds at the property that did not work when she first moved in.
She supplied no corroborating evidence of this issue. She relies on a photograph supplied by the landlord which depicts a wooden venetian blind (not bamboo) which has a small broken piece. The tenant said that blind could not be closed and could not go up or down, but produced no corroborating evidence.
The tenant said she brought it up when she inspected the property at the move in and then in August 2024.
I accept the landlord’s explanation that this issue was not raised at any point until after the case management conference. There was no evidence corroborating the tenant’s broad claim that there were many broken blinds of the property that did not work. I therefore do not allow this claim. The only broken blind that can be shown as the photograph which has a small broken piece out of it. I consider this to be in the category of a de minimis issue, meaning that it is extremely minor and I would not be prepared to award any compensation at all. xi.There was a window with a crack in it, located high up and it could not be reached.
The tenant produced no photograph of the allegedly cracked window.
The tenant said she complained about it verbally when she moved in and then later to a handy man who came to attend to some repairs.
The tenant said she raised it on other occasions during visits but she accepts she only raised it more formally at the time of the case management conference.
The landlord accepts there is a crack but says the Healthy Homes Inspector (who did an inspection before the tenant moved in) did not raise the cracked window as an issue.
The landlord says the window was still functional and was not letting in cold air.
I find that there was a crack in the window of some description but I simply have an adequate evidence to be satisfied that the crack was letting in cold air. The tenant has failed to prove that the crack represented a failure of the landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain the property. xii.The bathroom light did not work from July 2024 until May 2025.
The tenant claims she had to use a floor lamp in the bathroom because the light did not work. The light fixture cover could not be removed. The tenant verbally asked the landlord to inspect this in August 2024. She claims she followed this up later.
The issue was next raised at the case management conference and then later fixed.
The landlord said that this issue was raised at the August 2024 inspection.
When this was then raised again 2025 the landlord says it took then steps to repair, but accepts there were delays.
I find that the bathroom light did not work for a period of approximately nine months. This evidence establishes that the landlord was in breach of its obligation to repair and maintain the property. I consider that the tenant should be awarded compensation in the sum of $500 as a global sum to compensate her for the lack of a working bathroom light.
The landlord must pay the tenant $500. xiii.Mould: There was mould and mildew in the bathroom, in a bedroom, on the bathroom extractor fan, on the curtains in the lounge, in the lounge ceiling,
The tenant produced photos of mould and mildew over the extractor fan, the ceiling in the lounge and mould on curtains in the lounge.
There was no window in the bathroom that opened to the outside.
The tenant complained to the landlord about these issue when she moved in.
She then followed up verbally at later visits.
The tenant claims she would wipe down the mould but some areas she could not reach. She says there was also mould throughout the house but it was its worst in the bathroom.
The tenant wiped the mould away every month but it would come back.
She says when she complained to the landlord, the landlord said to just open the windows.
The tenant complains she was regularly sick and it impacted her negatively. She claims it did not make her feel safe.
The landlord says this was not an issue raised at the outset and it has no evidence of her having raised it. The landlord said it is an older property and that the premises needed more airing.
I deal with my findings on this issue below because it is linked to the failure of the extractor fan. xiv.The extractor fan in the bathroom never worked and was covered in mould.
The tenant said it never worked at all. It would make a noise but the vent did not open. It was not until 23 May 2025 when the handyman came to repair some of the items that she learned from handyman the extractor fan did not work at all.
The tenant said if you had a hot shower, the bathroom would be very steamy for a long time.
The issue was not fixed until the tenant moved out.
The landlord accepted that the fan was not fully working, but says although the fan part was working, only the blades which were not opening were faulty.
The landlord said it has now been fixed.
In regard to the mould I am not satisfied that the tenant has established there was a general problem with mould at the property. Mould can be an issue with New Zealand properties generally and airing properties by opening windows is always advisable. Mould always needs to be wiped down as well as soon as it appears otherwise the mould builds up.
I am however satisfied that the evidence establishes there was a systemic issue with mould in the bathroom. That conclusion follows from the fact there was no working extractor fan in the bathroom and no window to the outside.
Bathrooms need to have a working extractor fan in order to ensure that the air circulating and mould does not develop.
I consider that the landlord has breached its obligations under s 45 of the RTA to repair and maintain the property by ensuring there was a working extractor fan.
I also however find that the tenant has not complained about this issue, understandable to some extent because she was unaware the extractor fan was not working.
I am prepared to allow compensation for this breach of the RTA in the sum of $500.
The landlord must pay the tenant $500. xv.None of the bedroom doors closed properly.
There were three bedroom doors. The tenant’s evidence is that they would close but not latch fully.
The tenant claims she first raised it in August 2024 during the August 2024 inspection. As with many of the other matters raised by the tenant it was not raised in the initial application she filed but was raised for the first time following the case management conference.
It was then repaired on 23 May 2025.
The landlord said it was not raised in the August inspection and was not raised for the first time until the case management conference.
The landlord has remedied this problem when it has been drawn to their attention. I do not accept the tenant’s evidence that she raised it in August 2024. I consider the landlord not to have been a breach of its obligations under the RTA with respect to the bedroom doors. xvi.The backdoor handle came off in around mid-2024 and was not fixed.
The tenant has no photographic evidence corroborating this alleged failure. She said the knob would come off, making it harder to lock. The key would not lock the door, but there was a latch at the top and the bottom which would work.
The tenant says she raised it at the August 2024 inspection.
She next raised it at the case management conference.
It was then fixed on 23 May 2025.
The landlord said it was not raised in August, it was only raised for the first time at the case management conference and then it was fixed.
Once again, the tenant has not proven her claim on the balance of probabilities. I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes the tenant raised this failure with the landlord prior to the case management conference. Once it has been raised as a problem it has then been repaired.
This aspect of the tenant’s claim fails. xvii.The backdoor bottom lock was loose.
The tenant has no evidence corroborating this alleged failure. She said the lock would work but it was loose
The tenant says she raised it at the August 2024 inspection.
She next raised it at the case management conference.
It was then fixed on 23 May 2025.
The landlord said it was not raised in August, it was only raised for the first time at the case management conference and then it was fixed.
Once again, the tenant has not proven her claim on the balance of probabilities. I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes the tenant raised this failure with the landlord prior to the case management conference. Once it has been raised as a problem it has then been repaired.
This aspect of the tenant’s claim fails. xviii.The key to the backdoor did not work (but the door could still be locked).
The tenant has no evidence corroborating this alleged failure. The key would go in but it would not turn.
The tenant says she raised it at the August 2024 inspection.
She next raised it at the case management conference.
It was then fixed on 23 May 2025.
The landlord said it was not raised in August, it was only raised for the first time at the case management conference and then it was fixed.
Once again, the tenant has not proven her claim on the balance of probabilities. I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes the tenant raised this failure with the landlord prior to the case management conference. Once it has been raised as a problem it has then been repaired.
This aspect of the tenant’s claim fails. xix.There were loose electrical sockets throughout the property.
The tenant says there were 3 sockets that were loose. She supplied three photographs of this issue. These showed the sockets were loose. The tenant would avoid using these sockets where necessary.
The tenant raised the issue with the landlord verbally in August 2024 but never followed up. It was fixed on 23 May 2025
The landlord says this issue was never drawn to its attention until after the case management conference. It then fixed the issue.
Once again, the tenant has not proven her claim on the balance of probabilities. I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes the tenant raised this failure with the landlord prior to the case management conference. Once it has been raised as a problem it has then been repaired.
This aspect of the tenant’s claim fails. xx.The rubber seals in the lounge, and the two bedroom windows were broken and the windows would not shut properly.
The tenant said this problem was there was there from the outset.
The tenant said she complained to the landlord about it in August 2024.
She did not follow up with the landlord until raising it at the case management conference.
The issue was then fixed on 23 May 2025.
The landlord says their response is as above. The issue was never raised at all until the case management conference and was then repaired.
The tenant has not proven her claim on the balance of probabilities. I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes the tenant raised this failure with the landlord prior to the case management conference. Once it has been raised as a problem it has then been repaired.
This aspect of the tenant’s claim fails. xxi.The light fixture in the main bedroom did not work from November 2024 and there were loose electrical wires around the light fixture.
This issue first presented itself in around November 2024. The tenant did not complain to the landlord until May 2025 but it was not fixed when the tenant moved out.
The tenant said the exterior surround of the light fitting was not fixed to the wall properly. She attempted to remove the exterior to replace the bulb but it then fell off. She said there was no nut that fell out. She said it was already loose and just sitting on the wall. It came off in her hands with very little pressure.
There was another light in the bedroom which was functional.
The landlord said she first saw the issue in May 2025. She said the exterior had been removed but the nut to reattach the exterior had been removed. The landlord did not fix it because she went to try and find the relevant nut but could not locate it. Eventually the landlord replaced it altogether after the tenant moved out.
The evidence establishes that the light fitting was faulty but I am not prepared to order any compensation in favour of the tenant because she has not brought to the landlord’s attention until this year. Further, there was another working light in the bedroom and am not satisfied that there has been any loss. xxii.The external glass lounge door would not close properly.
The tenant claims it was very hard to close the door properly.
The tenant brought this to the attention of the landlord in August 2024.
Nothing happened, according to the tenant, it was then brought up at the case management conference and fixed in May 2025.
The landlord said this issue was never notified prior to the case management conference about this issue. The landlord arranged for a tradesperson to apply some CRC and this has fixed the fault.
I find that the tenant has not proven her claim on the balance of probabilities. I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes the tenant raised this failure with the landlord prior to the case management conference. Once it has been raised as a problem it has then been repaired.
This aspect of the tenant’s claim fails. xxiii.The clothesline was broken.
The tenant claims the clothesline did not open up fully, so that if you hung too many things on it, it was too weak.
The tenant could only hang light things on it, nothing heavy.
The tenant says she complained to the landlord in November 2022 but nothing was done to fix it.
She claims she followed up with the landlord at the August 2024 inspection.
The issue was never fixed. The tenant said that when the handyman came in May 2025, he said it is completely broken and it needed to be replaced.
The landlord says the first time it was informed about this issue was at the case management conference.
Upon inspection, the landlord said that its handyman adjusted the washing line a little to make it functional.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven on the balance of probabilities there was any fault with the washing line following the adjustment undertaken by the landlord’s handyman. I am also not satisfied that the tenant has proven she drew this to the attention of the landlord prior to the case management conference. This aspect of the tenant’s claim fails. xxiv.There were plants growing in all of the gutters.
On 5 October 2022, the tenant emailed the landlord about this issue;
The landlord then sent someone to clean the gutters out. The weeds however eventually all came back again.
In August 2024, the tenant claims she told the landlord about this issue again.
The gutters remained uncleaned.
The landlord says the gutters were cleaned during the tenancy.
The tenant supplied no photographic or other evidence corroborating any of these claims and I dismiss this aspect of her claim because it has not been proven. xxv.The paving around the house had mould making it slippery every time it rained.
The tenant relies only on photographs produced by the landlord depicting the pavers condition at the outset of the tenancy. She supplied no evidence corroborating the condition of the pavers to verify her claim.
The tenant says she complained to the landlord about this soon after she moved in. She said it had never been cleaned before she moved in.
On other occasions she talked to the landlord about the pavers.
The tenant tried to clean them herself.
The landlord said the paving area was always sprayed by the lawnmower. The landlord produced no corroborating evidence that the lawnmowing contractor did this work.
The tenant says the contractor never did this work at all.
Once again, as with many other aspects of the tenants claim she has submitted inadequate evidence corroborating her complaints. She has also failed to establish that she pointed this out to the landlord after moving in and then on “other occasions”. This was a consistent theme throughout evidence but was little evidence corroborating what she was saying.
I dismiss this aspect of the tenant’s claim. xxvi.There was an area in the shared backyard which was muddy and slippery.
The tenant showed me two photographs from her phone (which she then emailed to the tribunal) showing the vicinity in which the mud was located.
The photographs did not however show any mud, although there are some brown patches, and I note that the area where there is mud seems small.
The tenant had a dog and claims she had to walk over the mud because she had to pick up after her dog. Also, she was accessing the rear of the property to assist a neighbour and she slipped on the mud. She claims the landlord was dismissive about this.
The tenant submitted no evidence corroborating any ongoing medical issue arising out of this fall.
The tenant claims she raised it with the landlord when she first moved in, and then in August 2024, but that nothing was done.
The tenant says that this issue was never remedied.
The landlord said it is a normal incidence of rainy days that there will be mud in a backyard.
There was a reasonable amount of time spent dealing with this aspect of the claim whilst the tenant attempted to find photographs on her phone depicting the mud in the backyard.
I dismiss this aspect of the tenant’s claim. She has failed to establish that there was muddy patch in the backyard that was as serious as she alleges, that would amount to a breach of the landlord’s obligations under the RTA. xxvii.The gate in the backyard that led to the neighbouring property would not close.
The tenant claims that the back of the property is adjacent to the back of another property.
For some reason, there was a small gate between the two between the two properties.
The tenant put a big planter up against the gate to keep it closed.
The tenant says she raised this with the landlord many times. It was not repaired by the time she left.
The landlord says the tenant never once complained and seemed fine with the planter box being there.
The evidence establishes that the gate was not working but the tenant did not complain about this to the landlord. Indeed, the tenant seemed content with the fact that the planter box would secure the gate. I consider this to be one of a number of issues raised above that have only been raised after this application was before the Tribunal. It is very much in a de minimis category. The tenant’s application for breach of the obligation of quiet enjoyment. Law and analysis
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. Evidence and analysis
Between 7 March 2024 and 25 May 2024 the tenant claims there was significant disruption in the backyard which interfered with her quiet enjoyment of the property.
There was a leak in the rear unit and the tenant had been told by the landlord someone was coming to fix it. Without any warning, on 7 March, five or six tradespeople turned up to begin to perform the required repairs. They set up their base in the backyard.
The tenant messaged the landlord who told her that these were the people who would be repairing the leak.
Over the next few days they dug up the back yard and removed the back fence. They dug a trench around three sides of the rear unit.
Throughout this period, the contractors would randomly turn up to work on the job, always without notice.
The tenant produced photographs showing the trenches and large piles of dirt The backyard was unusable, and the tenant could not let her dog out.
The tenant also claims the landlord personally harassed her.
The tenant received no rent reduction.
The tenant claims compensation for not being able to use the backyard. She could not have her door open at all. She did not want her dog going out. The workers would urinate in the backyard, they broke a few pieces of furniture. She felt she could not use the washing line.
The tenant provided no corroborating information as to the worth of the items damaged.
The tenant is overall claiming compensation of $23,400. This is comprised of: a. $300 per week for not having access to the backyard b. $200 per week for the landlord’s unwillingness to notify the tenants in advance of the tradespeople. c. $200 per week for the use and damage to the chairs. d. $500 per week for the workers disturbing the peace and quiet of the backyard. e. $500 per week for the stress and inconvenience the tenant was put to. f. $3000 for the interference with her peace and quiet. The landlord’s position
The landlord says that the rear unit was a concrete block house, and one corner was slightly wet, so the drainage and waterproofing had to be redone.
The landlord is not in a position to dispute the tenant’s version of events about the level of disruption and accepts that some compensation is payable. The landlord submits $30 per week over the 9 week period that the tenant did not have the use of her backyard is acceptable compensation.
I find the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
I consider $150 per week a reasonable compensation of the loss to the tenant for the disruption The tenant’s claim for damaged is highly exaggerated and I do not accept it at all.
The landlord must pay the tenant $1350. Has the Landlord breached its obligations under s 45(1)(e) of the RTA?
Section 45 (1) (e) of the RTA provides that the landlord shall “take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises”.
The tenant alleges that from May to November 2024, the other tenant, [The neighbouring tenant] performed a number of abusive actions, including: a. Hit the tenant’s dog on a number of occasions. b. Would try and provoke the tenant’s dog c. Would call the tenant a “black bitch” and “fucking Indian” and “Go back to your country” d. One time he approached the tenant in a threatening way e. Another time he came out swinging his broom. f. He was known to Police; the tenant filed two Police reports. (No charges were ever brought). g. Every time the tenant opened her back door to go outside, he would come out and start walking around, uttering racial slurs and the like. h. In total there were numerous incidents, including two times he tried to hit the tenant and two times she saw him hitting her dog. i. The tenant would bang on her door.
When the tenant complained to the landlord, the landlord said not to go outside. The tenant thinks the landlord did not do enough.
The claim the tenant makes is for: $19632.32, including vet bills and compensation for not being able access the backyard because of the other tenant, loss of revenue due to cancelling bookings for her work because she had to stay home with her dog. The landlord’s position.
Regarding issues between the other tenant and the dog, the landlord said that when she spoke to the other tenant about this issue, the other tenant complained to the landlord about the dog jumping up on him and chewing things left in the backyard. The landlord has attempted to do what she could in the circumstances. The tenant did not move into the property with a dog. Analysis
The Tribunal has generally applied a three stage analysis to applications brought under section 45 (1) (e) RTA. First, has there been an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises? Secondly, has the interference been caused or permitted by another tenant of the landlord? Where the answer is yes to the above two questions, has the landlord taken all reasonable steps to ensure the interference did not or does not continue?
There is strong evidence to answer the first two questions in the affirmative. I am satisfied after carefully considering all the evidence, that there has been a substantial interference with the tenant’s peace comfort and privacy over the months the rear unit was occupied by the neighbouring tenant [The neighbouring tenant].
The racial abuse was upsetting for the tenant, as was the harm to her dog and the associated worry.
A person should be able to live in their home free from the worry of danger from another tenant, especially where that tenant has the same landlord.
The words “permit” includes “turning a blind eye to the obvious or not taking any reasonable steps to prevent”.
Did the landlord take all reasonable steps to ensure [The neighbouring tenant] did not cause or permit an interference with the other tenant’s reasonable peace comfort or privacy?
Under the law the landlord has a positive obligation to “take all reasonable steps” to ensure none of their other tenants cause or permit an interference with the peace comfort or privacy of other tenants.
I make the following observations regarding the landlord’s responsibilities under section 45 (1) (e) RTA: (a) First, I note that section requires the landlord to take all reasonable steps to prevent the interference; (b) Second, what might be considered a “reasonable step” must be assessed in relation to the given set of circumstances. A landlord may respond in a different manner depending on the nature of the complaint, for example a complaint about isolated case of noise will likely be dealt with quite differently to a complaint involving allegations of criminal conduct. The nature, extent and impact of the tenant’s breach will become crucial in any analysis of “reasonable steps” taken by the landlord. (c) Third, the concept of reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises is a fundamental requirement under tenancy law. It involves the right to live and enjoy the premises in peace and without reasonable disturbance. Premises extends to non-exclusive areas such as shared lawns, gardens and facilities. Under the law tenants have the right to quiet enjoyment but they also have a responsibility to ensure their behaviour and the behaviour of their visitors do not interfere with their neighbour’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. Quiet enjoyment under the law is qualified by the concept of reasonableness. This may mean that some potentially unpleasant disputes or differences of opinion between tenants or a personality conflict with your neighbour will unlikely qualify as an infringement of reasonable quiet enjoyment.
Much of the difficult interactions have emanated from the disharmony about the tenant’s dog.
The tenant knew when she took on the tenancy that the backyard was shared. [The neighbouring tenant] did not like the tenant’s dog jumping on him, in much the same way that many people do not. [The neighbouring tenant] may not have liked dogs and may have been frightened of the dog.
I have carefully read all the evidence provided and I conclude that although the tenant disagreed with the steps the landlord took, which she likely considers were not enough, there is not enough here for me to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not take all reasonable steps to prevent the interference.
I dismiss this aspect of the tenant’s claim.
I now move on to the landlord’s application. For completion I note that although there was reference to breach of Healthy Home standards. I have not made any award under those provisions. This is because I consider that adequate justice has been served by the alternative orders I have made above. Further, no corroborating reports were offered regarding Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord’s application for rent and power bills
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided updated rent records also supplied to the tenant which prove the amount owing as at the end of the tenancy of $9572.86 as ordered above.
The tenant was unable to corroborate having made any additional payments other than those captured on the landlord’s rent summary.
The tenant raised an issue about the rent increase, which at one point increased from $630 to $650 per week. The landlord accepted it was effective as at 2 September 2024.
The tenant said initially the first time she was aware of the rent increase was on 3 October 2024, but when the landlord then pointed out she had received the email advising the rent increase on 10 September 2024, the tenant accepted she knew at that point.
I find that the rent increase was properly given effect to when the landlord claims.
In regard to the power, the submeter was located in the other premises. The tenant complained about the power bills initially being a bit sporadic, but by early 2024 they were regular.
The landlord has submitted a full breakdown and supporting documentation for the power. The tenant is not able to point to any corroborating evidence as to why she should not pay it. I asked her several times how much of the power bill did she accept she should pay and she was unable to respond.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for power, as ordered above. 8 8 Note that in the original order this order finding that the landlord had proven their claim was made,

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 9
The tenant's obligation is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
In Ace Property Management v Owens 10 , the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonable tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The landlord’s cleaning invoice relates to a “deep clean”. From the photographs I have been shown, whilst I can see the premises may not have been up to the standard for a new tenant, they are still in my view reasonably clean and tidy.
I disallow the landlord’s claim for cleaning.
There was a small amount of rubbish in the carport / garage but I consider $100 to be adequate compensation for the rubbish removal.
For completion I note that other than limited aspects of the tenant’s claim exemplary damages has not been sought by either party. Even if it had been, I would have declined to award exemplary damages. Whiles the parties feel however, due to a typographical error the amount for power claimed by the landlord and discussed by the parties at the hearing was omitted from the table on page one of this order. 9 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 10 DC Wellington, CIV 2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008 strongly towards each other about this case, this is not a claim where such damages would have been warranted

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.
It was not challenged by the tenant that the dog had chewed through that part of the property. The tenant has attempted to repair it.
The landlord claims the sum of $1541 for the repairs.
I need to take into account betterment and depreciation and I consider $500 to be a more appropriate compensation for this deliberate damage.
The landlord is also claiming for the cost of full carpet replacement throughout the house. The landlord submitted corroborating evidence as to the smell of dog urine in the carpet. The landlord said the carpet had only recently been replaced at the outset of the tenancy.
The tenant said the dog did not enter the bedrooms but accepted he urinated in the house as a puppy. She said she attempted to get the smell out using various products and a cleaner.
I accept there has been some lingering smell and it was necessary to replace the carpet, but I accept that the dog did not go into all the bedrooms. I also consider betterment and depreciation needs to be taken into account. Had there been no urine in the carpet, the carpet would have been four years old at the end of the tenancy and approaching its half life.
I award the landlord $1000 by way of compensation for the smell of dog urine.
I have awarded name suppression for both parties as both have been successful. I decline to award return of the filing free.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5018669 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5018669 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions