What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5021254 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5021254?

Compensation: Hot water in the kitch…: $614.29 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Leak 1- Burst Pipe: $3,485.72 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Leak 2: $2,292.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: No insurance info in T…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement for comm…: $210.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,270.00 awarded to landlord; Master Bedroom Door: $1,095.95 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,668.48 awarded to landlord; With A Signed Copy Of The TA Before…: $750.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021254?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021254?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11557341-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5021254 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5021254?

Compensation: Hot water in the kitch…: $614.29 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Leak 1- Burst Pipe: $3,485.72 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Leak 2: $2,292.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: No insurance info in T…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement for comm…: $210.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,270.00 awarded to landlord; Master Bedroom Door: $1,095.95 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,668.48 awarded to landlord; With A Signed Copy Of The TA Before…: $750.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021254?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021254?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11557341-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5021254 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5021254 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5021254 — net $231.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 October 2024	$8,270.00		3. The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Water rates: to 9 October 2024	$1,668.48		Water rates: to 9 October 2024
Repairs: Master bedroom door	$1,095.95		Repairs: Master bedroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide the tenants		$750.00	160. I make an order for the landlord to pay $750.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA.
with a signed copy of the TA before the tenancy		$750.00	160. I make an order for the landlord to pay $750.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA.
Compensation: No insurance info in TA		$150.00	No insurance info in TA
Compensation: Leak 1- Burst Pipe		$3,485.72	Leak 1- Burst Pipe
Compensation: Reimbursement for commercial		$210.00	Reimbursement for commercial
Compensation: Leak 2		$2,292.86	Leak 2
Compensation: Hot water in the kitchen		$614.29	Hot water in the kitchen
Exemplary damages: Insufficient number of smoke		$1,800.00	137. I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,800.00 in exemplary damages (one quarter of the maximum penalty available) because: a.
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment		$750.00	160. I make an order for the landlord to pay $750.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA.
Total award	$11,061.43	$10,829.87
Net award	$231.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$231.56

Claims and awards for application 5021254 — net $231.56 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 9 October 2024

Amount: $8,270.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 3. The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Water rates: to 9 October 2024

Amount: $1,668.48
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: to 9 October 2024

Repairs: Master bedroom door

Amount: $1,095.95
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Master bedroom door

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant] must pay Home365 Property Management Limited As Agent For Meiling Yang And Xiaodong Sun immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Home365 Property Management Limited As Agent For Meiling Yang And Xiaodong Sun: $231.56 [The tenant]: $5,568.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 19 February 2025 and 11 March 2025.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, reimbursement of the filing fee, compensation and exemplary damages for: a. Breaches of s45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947; and b. Failure to provide healthy homes and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement; c. Breaches of their quiet enjoyment; and d. Failure to provide a signed tenancy agreement and the statutorily required information.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide a signed copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenants before the tenancy commenced?

The tenancy agreement was signed by both parties on 20 January 2022, and the tenancy commenced on 10 February 2022.
The tenant says he did not get a copy of the signed agreement before the tenancy commenced.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has provided evidence that the signed tenancy agreement and a photograph of the keys and the water meter was emailed to the tenant on 16 February 2022, 6 days after the tenancy commenced.
The tenants say there was no tenancy agreement was provided to them after they signed it on 20 January 2022, until the email on 16 February 2022.
The landlord says it is not sure how the tenancy agreement was signed, as sometimes people sign in the system and some sign on a hard copy and return it. The landlord’s records show the tenant sent the signed tenancy agreement to the property managers, via email, on 20 January 2022. The original unsigned copy was sent to the tenants via the TPS portal.
The landlord says they sent the tenants a copy of the signed tenancy agreement on 20 January 2022 at 7pm, to the same email address the tenant sent their signed copy from. The email address this was sent to was info@odlconstruction.co.nz. The tenant confirmed he no longer has access to this email address to check.
The landlord sent the registry a copy of the alleged 20 January 2022 email today. I can confirm the email with the tenancy agreement was not forwarded to the tenant on 20 January 2022. The email chain clearly shows the email with the tenancy agreement was sent to the tenants on 16 February 2022 at 7:44pm.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has proved he did not receive a signed copy of the tenancy agreement before the tenancy commenced. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenants with a written and signed tenancy agreement before the tenancy commenced and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord is an experienced property management company that explained its normal processes to the Tribunal, but clearly did not follow them in this instance. It should have reasonably known that it is required by law to provide the tenant with a written and signed tenancy agreement prior to the tenancy commencing and it did not; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the landlord’s obligation to provide the tenant with a written and signed tenancy agreement so that he is aware of his rights and responsibilities, as well as the landlord’s obligations to him; c. t is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations provide tenants with written and signed tenancy agreements for the protection of both parties’ interests. Healthy homes standards information and smoke alarm information
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a compliance statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 also requires that the landlord provide a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did receive a very general insulation statement. That statement is bereft of any details about the ceiling and underfloor insulation in the premise and it does not confirm whether the insulation meets the required standard. The tenant also did not receive any of the required healthy homes information for the other four healthy homes standards. As such, the tenant had no idea when he took on the tenancy, whether the premises was fully healthy homes compliant and/or whether any exemptions apply to the premise.
The landlord says it used a standard template it had downloaded from Tenancy Services. It says it was not aware that the template had changed, so it thought it was complying with the law and that the compliance statement covered all healthy homes standards areas. In addition, the landlord says they did not provide the detailed healthy homes information to the tenant, as it had a healthy homes assessment report that confirms the house was compliant at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, it considered the compliance statement was sufficient.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA.
I find the landlord intentionally breached 13A(1CA) of the RTA and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that it is required by to provide the tenants with healthy homes information with a written tenancy agreement; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on their statutory right to receive information about whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements. This was particularly important in this case as the landlord was aware the tenants were new migrants to New Zealand that had very limited knowledge of New Zealand residential tenancy law; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have healthy homes compliance information given to them prior to the commencement of the tenancy so they can make an informed decision whether or not to rent a non- compliant premise.
I find that 100 percent of the maximum available exemplary damage quantum of $750.00 is appropriate given the tenants have proven the premise was not fully healthy homes compliant and they were denied the opportunity to forgo this rental offered to them because it did not meet the healthy homes standards and the smoke alarm regulations. Insurance information in the tenancy agreement
The tenant says the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises as part of the tenancy agreement.
Section 13A(2) of the RTA states “the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: a. If the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and b. If the premises are insured, a statement: i. setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and ii. informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or66J(5))”.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord says it agrees that the insurance information was not in the tenancy agreement, but the breach was not intentional as this was the property manager’s first tenancy after it took on the business and it was not aware of this legal requirement. It paid for the template documents as part of the business and these documents were on the TPS software.
During the tenancy the landlord made a claim on its insurance because a korero bird (wood pigeon) flew into the window and broke it. This insurance claim was made on 1 March 2023. The landlord says at this time the tenants were aware of the insurance as this insurance covered this damage.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the required insurance information, prescribed by sections 13A(2) and 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, but that it did so as it was not fully aware of its legislative obligation to do so as this was the first property that it had managed. Ignore of the law is no excuse when it comes to compliance with the RTA, but I cannot conclude that the breach was intentional.
The breach was a technical breach that the evidence shows: a. Had a negligible if any effect on the tenant, as the property is insured, had the tenant requested the insurance information it would have been provided; b. There were no claims made by the tenant that suggested the premises were not insured or that any issues occurred where the landlord had to rely on its insurance; c. It is not in the public interest for the Tribunal’s time to be taken up on technical breaches that have no effect.
As such, while the evidence proves a minor technical breach has occurred, I do not find it just to award the tenant exemplary damages for the breach.
Landlords are however required to understand their responsibilities to tenants, and I acknowledge this by awarding a compensatory sum of $150.00 as it is in the public interest for the Tribunal to dissuade landlords from failing to educate themselves on their responsibilities to their tenants under the RTA. Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?
The tenants say the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the RTA obligations to him.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires the landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenant says the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The landlord says the tenant was with them when the entry inspection was carried out on 9 February 2022, and that photograph 8 of the exterior shows the tenant in the picture and 159 Dining room 12 and 214 the new room. Each time the tenant is out beside the pool and not in the house.
The tenant says there was a lot of garden work to be done when they moved in and he and his team undertook this work before the tenancy commenced and it is in the invoice dated 28 June 2022 from ODL Construction Ltd.
The tenant showed the Tribunal text messages dated 26 January 2022 where the parties are discussing the purchase of the beds and whether they can offset the costs of the beds with the cost of their labour in the garden. The tenant’s say that the invoice should be dated 26 January 2022 and not 26 June 2022.
The pre-entry inspection report has a different date on the bottom of it and the landlord says that is the date they downloaded the report from the palace system for submission to the Tribunal.
On balance, I prefer the tenant’s explanation that they were at the property undertaking garden work and were not there for the purpose of going through a pre-tenancy property inspection with the property managers.
The property inspection report does not have any status or comments inserted. The landlord says it is its practice not to do this and that it relies solely on the photographs, unless there is a major issue. Leak 1- Burst Pipe
The tenant says that in January 2024 he and his wife could hear what he thought was a water pipe making a noise in the kitchen, but they couldn’t see any water or physical damage. A week later, 25 January 2024, the pipe burst overnight. The tenant woke up to the lounge and kitchen flooded. He sent the property manager a text. The property manager had a plumber come the same day to fix the pipe.
The parties confirmed the insurer’s assessor came on 8 February 2024 and produced text messages to prove this claim.
Three insurer’s contractors came on 14 February 2024 and removed the gib and insulation, disconnected the lights in the kitchen and the lounge, disconnected two power points in the kitchen and two in the lounge, and removed the gib and framing in the wall of the kitchen and lounge. The tenant had to remove his television off the wall, and there were no lights in the lounge.
The insurance assessor came back the next day and did moisture readings, which were high, and hired a commercial dehumidifier to dry out the gib and framing before any remedial work could be done.
The insurer returned to moisture test again after about a week of using the dehumidifier and found it was dry. The tenants were told someone would be back to fix all the disconnected and dissembled areas in the next week, but no one came.
The landlord says the tenant did not inform it that there was an issue with the power and gib nor that he had not had communication with the owner, its insurer or the insurers assessor and contractors. Therefore, the landlord is not liable for the insurer’s contractors had not undertaken this remedial work as it was not told the work had not been done until 25 March 2024. Further, the landlord says that it should not be held responsible for the lack of communication between the insurer and the property owners.
The tenant says he acted under the reasonable belief the property manager was working with the owner and its insurer to get the work remediated in a reasonable timeframe.
On 25 March 2024, the tenant sent the landlord a text message confirming that the lack of lights, power points and gib was causing them issues and asked for it to be fixed. The tenant offered to have these fixed by his contractors and the landlord agreed. The landlord thought that all it was responsible for after this time was to paint the walls.
The tenant used his own contractors to repair the lights, power points, gib, insulation and framing in March 2024.
After the gib was fixed, the landlord wanted to have its own contractors do the plaster and paint work. On Friday 12 April 2024 the landlord sent a text message asking if the painters can come on 14 April 2024. The tenant replies that the walls have not been gibed yet and it should be completed next weekend. The tenant was under the belief that his contractors would be doing the gib and plaster work.
The power was restored at the end of April 2024.
The landlord showed a photograph dated 5 May 2024 from the painter, sent by text message that shows the tenants had put up gib in the kitchen and lounge and they had undertaken the first coat of plastering.
On 6 May 2024 the tenant says he was informed the owner wanted to use its own contractors to do the plastering as well as the painting and the tenant had to turn his plasterer away as he had already arranged for the work to be completed that day and was told at the last minute the landlord wanted to use its own contractor.
The tenant produced a text message dated 22 May 2024, that confirms the tenant is still waiting on the finishing touches of the plastering and painting to be completed.
The tenant says the work was completed by 4 June 2024, when the owner and the property manager came to check the repairs that had been fully completed. The landlord claims the work was completed by 26 May 2024, based on the text message from the contractors.
The property manager provided the insurance information it had received from the owner, and as directed by Adjudicator King on 6 December 2024. The insurance information provided is scant. It proves the owners had agreed to a lump sum settlement and the insurer did not have much of a timeline of works completed.
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the period he had the stress and inconvenience they suffered from when the pipe burst on 25 January 2024 and the loss of the full amenity of the kitchen and part of the lounge area the 25 January 2024 to 26 May 2024 (17 weeks and 3 days). The tenants reasonably expected to be able to have full use of their kitchen and lounge and were also without power to these areas from 14 February 2024 to 25 March 2024 I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $200.00 per week for the period 25 January 2024 to 26 May 2024 that they suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience related leak 1. $200.00 x 17 =$3,400.00. $200.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 3 is $85.72. The rent rebate ordered is $3,485.72.
While I find that the tenant and his family suffered loss of amenity, inconvenience, and stress from this breach, I am not satisfied the tenant has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that this breach was intentional. The landlord has proven the issues were investigated in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and it took some time for the insurer to work through its administrative processes before the owners and insurer could remedy the issues found. Therefore, I find it is not appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages. Leak 2- Heat pump wall
The tenants say on 19 June 2024 they noticed a smell and moved the couch and found the carpet was damp and a few days later the wallpaper started to fall off and that is when they raised this issue with the landlord. The tenant hired a commercial dehumidifier and fan at $210.00 for three days. This cost has not been reimbursed to the tenant.
The landlord says they did not pay this cost as the tenant arranged this without its permission, so they are not liable for the tenant’s invoice and that it was the tenant's responsibility is to notify the landlord immediately and they may have used a different supplier at a cheaper price. It says that even if the dehumidifier was hired for the landlord’s benefit, they still refuse to pay this cost.
On 24 June 2024, the tenant reported the issue to the landlord via email.
On 25 June 2024, the landlord had a carpet cleaner come to professionally clean the carpet. He lifted the carpet and put a fan under it to dry the carpet out as the leak had travelled a long way. The landlord says that it believed the carpet was dry from this date.
The tenant says the carpet was not dry and was left lifted to allow it to continue to dry out. In addition, the wallpaper was off, there was a hole in the ceiling, the underlay was mouldy and growing mushrooms, and the room was smelly and not usable up to the last day of the tenancy.
The landlord says that on 1 July 2024, the tenant’s sent a text message saying an insurance assessor had called them to make a time to do an insurance assessment of the damage for the owner’s insurance claim.
The insurance assessor’s conclusion was that the cause of the leak was the air conditioner water leaking backwards. The tenant has a building contractor business that undertakes repairs and renovations, he did not believe the air conditioner was the cause of the leak, so he had his contractors come to assess the damage and investigate the cause of the leak and advise him what needed t be done to fix the leak and remediate the water related damage. The contractor informed the tenant that the leak was not because of a faulty air conditioner, and to fix it the leak the landlord needed to install a new flashing with a lead line that could be shaped around where the leak was coming from up on the roof.
The contractor that wrote the 30 August 2024 report was a water proofer not a builder and could not undertake the work.
The landlord says they accepted the insurance assessor’s opinion that the leak was from the air conditioner, and they took steps to remediate that as the issue.
After this work was done, the landlord says there had been no more leaks as there had been no more heavy rain and the leak only appeared after heavy rain.
On 23 July 2024, the tenant sent the landlord an email to confirm his contractor did not agree the leak was coming from the air conditioner.
On 24 July 2024, the landlord arranged for another building professional to go to the premise, and the tenant and the landlord’s building professional concluded that the leak might be due to there not being enough downpipe. The landlord then installed the downpipe. This builder also recommended that a small hole be made to monitor if downpipe had fixed the issue and if not, to help the builder to monitor where the water is coming from. This required the tenant to monitor the leak and report any reoccurrence to the landlord immediately. The landlord says it never heard of any leak issues again.
On 1 August 2024, the landlord says it followed up with tenant, and asked him if there had been any further leaks. He responded there was “no water on the floor but didn’t get much rain last night compared to the other times, but he thinks it’s still leaking a bit”. The landlord asked him to keep monitoring the situation because the only way to test if the remedial work had been successful was after heavy rain.
The landlord says that because the carpet and wall had dried out and had been commercially cleaned that the tenant could recommence using the room.
On 19 August 2024, the landlord says the tenant advised it the leak had returned and it was quite bad.
On 20 August 2024, the landlord arranged another leak detention professional and received a report on the contractor’s findings on 30 August 2024.This report from Waterproofing Solutions confirms the following causes of the leak: a. The poor apron detail leak is exacerbated by the fact the new downpipe spreader still feeds water from the downpipe directly onto the apron termination. Ideally the downpipe should be extended to take the upper water directly to the gutter. A spreader at this point would be ideal; b. There is a split weatherboard adjacent to the ensuite window that should be repaired; c. While not appearing to be causing leaks, the sealant joint around the toilet overflow vent is degraded and we recommend it is cut out and replaced. Toilet overflow penetration very close to apron flashing upstand behind cladding. Sealant joint at this point should be renewed; d. The retaining wall outside the lounge is currently in contact with the weatherboard cladding. This is poor practice and can accelerate degradation of the timber weatherboards at this point. Ideally the retaining wall should be modified so it is not in contact with the timber elements.
The landlord says the owners gave approval for all this work to be completed as soon as possible.
On 16 September 2024, there was a heavy rain, and the landlord texted the tenant to ask if there were any further leaks and got no response. The landlord then knocked on the tenant’s door without prior notification to ask permission to go into the house to check for leaks after the recent heavy rainfall.
The tenant’s daughter opened the door and gave the landlord permission to enter the house to check if there were still any visible leaks. The landlord says the carpet and wall were dry.
The tenant text the landlord on 19 September 2024 to confirm there were no visible leaks and advised the leak only happens if the wind is north easterly when it rains and that the wind had not been north easterly during the recent heavy rain. Consequently, the parties were not sure if the cause of the leak had been fully resolved.
The tenant says on the day he moved out, being 9 October 2024, the wall was still leaking and was damp and the gib needed to be removed and dried out. In addition, he confirmed that for that last month of the tenancy, he had to put a tarp on the roof to ensure no further leaks occurred. The tenant also stated that his contractor confirmed the fix required a new flashing with a lead line that could be shaped around where the leak was coming in.
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate of $150.00 per week for the period he had the stress and inconvenience they suffered from 24 June 2024 to 9 October 2024 (15 weeks and 2 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience caused by leak 2. $150.00 x 15 =$2,250.00. $150.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 2 is $42.86. The rent rebate ordered is $2,292.86.
While I find that the tenant and his family suffered loss of amenity, inconvenience and stress from this breach, I am not satisfied the tenant has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that this breach was intentional. The landlord has proven it had the issues investigated in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and took steps to remedy the issues found. Therefore, I find it is not appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages. No hot water in kitchen
The tenant says the kitchen has its own hot water cylinder that failed. The hot water cylinder tripped the power in the whole house and needed to be disconnected until it was repaired or replaced.
The tenant had no hot water in kitchen from 25 December 2022 to around the 6 February 2023, being 6 weeks and 1 day.
There were complications in remediating the issue. At first the wrong sized cylinder was ordered and then the various contractors were nor working cohesively. This caused delays.
The tenant says they had no hot water at all in the kitchen for 6 weeks and 1 day and they had to take hot water from other areas of the house and transfer it to the kitchen.
The landlord says the issue occurred around Christmas, when it was hard to get supplies and contractors and it addressed the issue as soon as it could. The hot water cylinder was of small size and needed to be ordered and then installed in the cupboard.
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the period he had the stress and inconvenience they suffered from when the hot water cylinder failed on 25 December 2022 to when the new one was installed on 6 February 2023, being 6 weeks and 1 day for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $100.00 per week for the period 25 January 2024 to 26 May 2024 that they suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience related leak 1. $100.00 x 6 =$600.00. $100.00 divided by 7 is $14.29. The rent rebate ordered is $614.29.
While I find that the tenant and his family suffered loss of amenity, inconvenience and stress from this breach, I am not satisfied the tenant has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that this breach was intentional. The landlord has proven it had the issues investigated in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and took steps to remedy the issues found. Therefore, I find it is not appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages.
Healthy Homes Standards Compliance
The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy agreement commenced 10 February 2022. As such, the landlord was required to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards from the 90th day after the tenancy commenced, being Wednesday 11 May 2022.
The landlord says prior to this tenancy the premise was owner occupied, so the landlord commissioned a healthy homes assessment and a report. After the report the landlord installed a heat pump and got an exemption for the fan in the two upstairs bathrooms.
The landlord commissioned a healthy homes assessment report, dated 13 January 2022. This report proves the premise complied all five of the healthy homes’ standards at the start of the tenancy and a certificate of compliance was issued.
The tenant confirmed he did not receive this report at the start of the tenancy and the tenancy agreement does not have all the required healthy homes standards details within it. The first time the tenant saw the healthy homes assessment report and the compliance certificate was when the landlord produced it in evidence to the Tribunal for these proceedings.
The tenant did not believe the rental premise met the ventilation standard and as the tenancy agreement did not contain most of the healthy homes information it is statutorily required to contain, the tenant was left being unsure whether the premise complied with this standard or not.
The tenant confirmed he never asked for any healthy homes’ information as his prior tenancy of 4 years was before the healthy homes standards came into effect and the requirements were new to him.
The tenant says the minor dwelling does not comply with any of the healthy homes standards and no assessment report has been done on it. It has no heating, no externally venting extractor fans in the kitchenette and bathroom and no smoke alarms. The landlord says the minor dwelling is a pool house and not for living in or sleeping in. The landlord has confirmed that it still has not done a healthy homes assessment done on this minor dwelling.
The property manager said the tenant was aware that they could not use the pool house as a dwelling and if the property inspection showed the tenant was using this space as a bedroom, she would have told them it was not designed for this purpose and did not meet healthy homes standard. Ventilation Standard
The tenant withdrew this claim as based on the Healthy Homes Assessment report the landlord has complied with the HHS ventilation standard as the two upstairs bathrooms in the main house are exempt and the lower level bathroom is ventilated.
The ventilation standard requires that a premise must have openable windows in the living room, dining room, kitchen, and bedrooms. Kitchens and bathrooms must have externally venting extractor fans or an acceptable continuous mechanical ventilation system that are externally vented.
The landlord’s healthy homes assessment report and compliance certificate shows that when the report was done, the house met the ventilation standard. It is possible that when the tenants’ healthy homes assessment report was completed that in the twelve months between the assessments, there was a block in the bathroom extractor fan that was preventing the exhaust airflow coming through the ducting pipes. The tenants have claimed there is a large rat in the ceiling that has been resident for much of their tenancy, and it is possible it has a nest in the ducting pipe. In addition, the tenants accepted that the two large sliding windows became harder and harder to open freely to the point thy are now essentially stuck shut and they cannot be locked as the house had dropped.
I find the issues raised by the tenants relate to failure to repair and maintain the premise rather than breaches of the healthy homes’ standards.
I dismiss the tenants claim for breach of the ventilation standard and do not consider an award of compensation for a failure to repair and maintain is appropriate as these issues were not brought to the landlord’s attention until 2 days prior to the hearing. Smoke alarms- breach of TA and breach of regulations
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenants claim the rental premise had only one working smoke alarm when the tenants moved in and no further alarms were installed during the tenancy.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Smoke alarms must be installed: i. within 3 metres of each bedroom door, or in every room where a person sleeps; ii. in each level or storey of a multi-storey or multi-level home; iii. in all rental homes, boarding houses, rental caravans, and self- contained sleep-outs. b. All new smoke alarms must: i. be photoelectric; ii. have a battery life of at least eight years, or be hard-wired; iii. installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions; iv. meet international standards. c. Existing smoke alarms do not need to be replaced if they are working, and have not passed the expiry date. d. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. e. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
The premise was advertised as a four-living area, five bedrooms, three bathrooms, laundry and a minor dwelling outside with two bedrooms and a kitchenette and a bathroom. This minor dwelling has no smoke alarms or ventilation and was not assessed or mentioned in the 13 January 2022 healthy homes assessment report.
The upstairs of the main dwelling where the bedrooms are located had two correctly spaced smoke alarms, between two bedrooms on the left and right but had no batteries in them and had not been tested before the tenancy commenced and did not work. The tenant assumed these did work so did not test them as they were hard to reach.
After the tenants started to look at alternative rental properties they came back and looked at these smoke alarms and found there were no batteries in these smoke alarms, and they looked like they were over 10 years old.
The tenants say there was no smoke alarm in the minor dwelling or in the lower level of the two-story main house. For example, there is no smoke alarm in the main kitchen. The tenant produced a video that proves there were no smoke alarms on the lower level of the main house and that this level had one of the five bedrooms in it. The remaining four bedrooms were upstairs.
The landlord says this minor dwelling is a pool house that is not supposed to be for living in.
The tenant produced an advertisement dated 8 November 2024 that claims “this is 5 bedroom, 3.5 bathroom, including a spacious master suite with 4 living arears and a double internal access garage and a minor dwelling that is fully self- contained with an oversized bedroom, kitchenette with bar fridge, bathroom, and storage room- ideal for guests or extended family”.
The landlord says the tenancy agreement provides for a maximum of 5 persons to reside at the premise and that was the tenant, his partner and three children. It says the children are named in the tenancy agreement. The tenant says his daughter did not live there and that his nephew did for a period of around 3 months. He says he should be able to use the minor dwelling for a bedroom and it should be healthy homes compliant.
The landlord says if the tenant had raised the issue of the smoke alarms this would have been remedied and he did not raise it.
The tenant says the smoke alarms should be checked at the start of each tenancy and at each property inspection and they were never checked.
The landlord says that routine property inspections are not required by law but is required by insurance and in these inspections, they do a quick walk through to assess any major issues and require the tenant to report repair and maintenance issues. It confirmed they never checked the smoke alarms during the tenancy.
The landlord says that when the premise was re-tenanted, it engaged a third party to check the smoke alarms and the batteries were replaced in the two upstairs. This provider installed a new smoke alarm in the lounge downstairs but none in the minor dwelling. This proves the smoke alarms were not working at the end of the tenancy and that there were no smoke alarms in the lower level of the main house.
The tenant says his nephew lived in one of the minor dwelling bedrooms for at least three months of the tenancy and the other room was used as a gym. The property managers submitted that they have undertaken regular property inspections every three months and there was never any evidence that any one was sleeping in the minor dwelling. Therefore, the minor dwelling did not require a smoke alarm to be installed.
The property managers say that they relied on the third-party healthy homes assessment report that states the premise has working some alarms, within 3 metres of each bedroom and that they are compliant. The landlord says that it should be able to rely on this assessment report, given that it was only completed on 13 January 2022, being less than one month before the tenancy was to commence.
I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premises were fitted with sufficient numbers of working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA.
Breaching any of the landlord’s s45 obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.
In order to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal has to be satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally, and it would be just to award exemplary damages, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,800.00 in exemplary damages (one quarter of the maximum penalty available) because: a. the landlord failed to provide sufficient numbers of smoke alarms in every room where a person sleeps and in each level of the multi-storey home and subjected the tenant, his partner and their children to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives; b. the tenant and his family subjected to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives and should have been able to rely on the landlord to meet its obligations under the RTA and associated regulations; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and risk to their health and wellbeing; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to provide smoke alarms to tenants for every room a person sleeps in and in every level and to record details about these accurately in a written tenancy agreement. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant’s claims are based on three separate incidents as follows: Incident 1
The tenant confirmed that on 27 February 2024, he sent an email to the property manager asking her to get the owners to change the address of their company as the IRD had questioned him why the owner’s property development company and the tenants construction company were both registered to the same address.
The tenant says he was being inconvenienced by the owners coming to the house to collect their mail and that the owner had called into the house a few days prior, without any prior notice, to collect his mail.
The property manager stated the owners changed their address on the Companies Office website on 14 November 2022, so the tenants should not have been getting their business mail.
The tenant says the owners have never changed their address, so they came around from time to time to collect mail without notification. They came at least 3 times to the door. The tenant’s neighbour also reported them coming around looking in the letterbox a few times.
The tenant produced some text messages from February 2024 that he had sent to the property manager asking it to get the owner to collect his mail as the mail volume was building up.
The property manager said the owners would not have gone to the property without any notice as the owner would not know when there was mail to collect. However, the tenants say the owners did turn up, knocked on the door and asked if there was any mail three times.
The tenant says the owners also turned up and rode the tenant’s children’s bike and met the tenant’s dog and they were not sure why the owners were there unannounced. The landlord says the owners did go to see the neighbours a few times, after the neighbours complained about the tenant’s dog running on the property and the tenant’s truck making a hole in the shared driveway. The owners may have decided to speak to the tenants while they were there. Incident 2
On 19 September 2024, there was a heavy rain, and the parties confirms the landlord texted the tenant to ask if there were any further leaks and got no response.
The landlord says it was trying to monitor the leak, which was only evident during heavy rain fall and these rainfalls were not happening frequently.
The landlord confirms it went to the premise and knocked on the tenant’s door, without prior notification, to ask permission to go into the house to check for leaks.
The landlord confirmed the tenant’s daughter opened the door and gave the landlord permission to enter the house to check if there were still any visible leaks. The landlord says it was inside for less than 3 minutes and found the carpet and walls were dry. The landlord says the tenant’s daughter was happy and not demonstrating that she was concerned in any way. Incident 3
The tenants say on a further date that they cannot recall, after the tenants received the termination notice, the landlord turned up to take photographs of the outside of the property without notification. The tenant’s daughter was surprised by persons taking photographs outside her window and called her parents to say that she was frightened.
The landlord denies this. It does say that it went to the premise twice to look at the leak only and this may have been the second time. It says it did not take photographs outside. It says further that it tried to call the tenant a few times before going to the premise but got no answer. Therefore, it decided to just go to check on whether the leak continued to be an issue.
I find the landlord intentionally committed three unlawful acts by going to the tenant’s home without giving him the courtesy of letting him know it was going to come by to investigate the leak or the owner was coming to collect mail.
Even though the tenant’s daughter allowed access to the property manager, the tenant says his daughter was anxious about the property manager and/or owners just turning up announced. In addition, the tenant says that it was inconvenient having the owners randomly arriving to collect mail or requiring the tenant to leave the owners mail in bags in the letter box.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 in exemplary damages (half the maximum penalty available) because: a. The landlord knew it should not be coming to the premises uninvited and carrying out tasks that it had not informed the tenants it was going to do; b. The tenant and his wife and children felt harassed and that the property manager was disrespectful of his family’s desire for peace, privacy, and quiet enjoyment of the property they were paying rent for; c. it is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the breach of privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching its obligations to allow tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $750.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA. accordingly. Termination without grounds
On 12 September 2024, the property manager sent the tenant an email informing him that the property owners were intending to terminate the tenancy so they could undertake repairs and renovations. The tenant says he started looking for a new property after he received this email as he, his wife, children and their businesses meant they had very specific needs in a property that may be hard to find.
The tenant confirmed he received a 90-day termination notice on 16 September 2024, ending the tenancy on 16 December 2024. The reason given for the termination notice was that the owners wanted to undertake extensive alterations, refurbishments, repairs or redevelopment of the premise or renovations that would not be practicable to undertake when the tenants were living there. The termination notice also confirmed the tenant could move out earlier than 16 December 2024, without having to give 28 days’ notice.
On 1 October 2024 the tenants gave 1 weeks’ notice and moved out on 9 October 2024.
The tenant says three weeks after he moved out, the property was advertised on Trade me for rent at $2,000.00 per week and that the advertisement said the house had been renovated inside and outside.
The tenant says he can tell from the photographs that no renovation work done, only minor repairs that could have been done while his tenancy continued.
The landlord says it advertised the property for rent on 14 November 2024, five weeks after the tenant’s tenancy had ended. It also provided invoices that proves it fully investigated and repaired the sources of the leak area, as recommended by the Waterproofing Solution report, it repaired the balcony, it fully repainted the inside and outside of the house, some locks were replaced, window latches were fixed, and the upstairs bathroom tiles were cleaned, repaired and re-siliconed. The invoice dates show these renovations took around 5 weeks to complete and that the renovations would have been disruptive to the tenant and his family’s quiet enjoyment if they had remained in the house during that period. In addition, the landlord says the renovations would have taken far longer if the tenancy had remained on foot.
The landlord confirmed that the new tenants moved into the property 17 January 2025, after all the repair and maintenance work had been fully completed.
The property manager says that after receiving the report from Waterproofing Solutions on 30 August 2024, the owners discussed this body of works with its contractors. They were advised that the works would take around two months to complete. In addition, on 13 September 2024, a second builder that had been engaged by the owners and had been helping to investigate and remediate the leak and text the property manager to tell her he was going to stop the job as he the work required was far more complicated than expected and he needed to discuss it further with her and the owners.
The landlord says the tenant’s own evidence shows that the leaks were still ongoing at this time and the landlord was finding it difficult to locate and fully remediate all the potential sources of the leak. By 16 September 2024, the landlord says it was still not sure if the leak was fixed, even though it had been dry for a while. It submits that it was reasonable for the owners to want to have more extensive investigations of the fragile cedar external walls, the flashing, the roof and internal walls, to ensure all potential leak areas were addressed fully and the leak issues resolved once and for all.
I am satisfied that the property managers and the owners had been trying to investigate and remediate the leak, and that the cause had eluded them. I am also satisfied that the property managers and owners made a considered decision to act on the recommendations set out in the Waterproof Solutions 30 August 2024 report and that they held a reasonable belief that their contractors would have greater ease of access to fully investigate and remediate all potential leak sources if the tenant and his family were not living in the house. For this reason, I do not accept that the tenancy was ended without grounds.
The tenant’s claim for compensation, general damages and/or exemplary damages for termination without grounds is dismissed for lack of evidence proving, on the balance of probabilities, that there were no lawful grounds to terminate the tenancy. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
At the 11 March 2025 hearing, the landlord withdrew its claims for pool maintenance costs and the cost of repairing a wall.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 9 October 2024.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant still owed $1,668.48 in water rates arrears and $8,270.00 rent arrears.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove these amounts were still owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has not disputed owing these amounts.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord submits the tenant caused damage to the door during the tenancy, requiring the door to be replaced, and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
During the exit inspection the landlord found a hole in the master bedroom door. It sent an email to the tenants on 10 October 2024, sending a photograph of the damage and informed the tenant that it would get someone in to fix the door and would send the tenant the invoice.
The tenant replied that the hole was in the door on the commencement of the tenancy. He explained that the door to the ensuite in the master bedroom had always had a hole in it and had never been repaired and he initially thought that was the hole he was referring to.
When the landlord sent the tenant comparison photographs, to prove the damage occurred during the tenancy, the tenant realised it was not the ensuite door. He stated that the damage must have happened when his belongings were being moved, out the hole was not there during the tenancy.
The tenant has claimed that the invoice was too expensive, he could have purchased and installed a new door for $30.00 and he was not given the opportunity to go back and fix it.
The landlord provided an invoice for the door repair which records the cost is $953.00 plus GST, being $1,095.95. The landlord says that this cost is higher as it is a veneer door. The landlord showed one of its suppliers of that door and the cost was $649.00 (GST inclusive), so it says the cost was reasonable with the labour, delivery, and disposal cost.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, it was more than fair wear and tear and the landlord is entitled to recover the cost it incurred having the damage remediated by its chosen contractors.
I uphold the landlord’s claim and award it compensation of $1,095.95.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenant has been substantially succeeded with his claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has also been substantially succeeded with its claims so I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in his proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest and justified because of the tenant’s conduct.
Nonpublication is ordered.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5021254 — net $231.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 October 2024	$8,270.00		3. The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Water rates: to 9 October 2024	$1,668.48		Water rates: to 9 October 2024
Repairs: Master bedroom door	$1,095.95		Repairs: Master bedroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide the tenants		$750.00	160. I make an order for the landlord to pay $750.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA.
with a signed copy of the TA before the tenancy		$750.00	160. I make an order for the landlord to pay $750.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA.
Compensation: No insurance info in TA		$150.00	No insurance info in TA
Compensation: Leak 1- Burst Pipe		$3,485.72	Leak 1- Burst Pipe
Compensation: Reimbursement for commercial		$210.00	Reimbursement for commercial
Compensation: Leak 2		$2,292.86	Leak 2
Compensation: Hot water in the kitchen		$614.29	Hot water in the kitchen
Exemplary damages: Insufficient number of smoke		$1,800.00	137. I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,800.00 in exemplary damages (one quarter of the maximum penalty available) because: a.
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment		$750.00	160. I make an order for the landlord to pay $750.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA.
Total award	$11,061.43	$10,829.87
Net award	$231.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$231.56

Claims and awards for application 5021254 — net $231.56 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 9 October 2024

Amount: $8,270.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 3. The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Water rates: to 9 October 2024

Amount: $1,668.48
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: to 9 October 2024

Repairs: Master bedroom door

Amount: $1,095.95
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Master bedroom door

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant] must pay Home365 Property Management Limited As Agent For Meiling Yang And Xiaodong Sun immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Home365 Property Management Limited As Agent For Meiling Yang And Xiaodong Sun: $231.56 [The tenant]: $5,568.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 19 February 2025 and 11 March 2025.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, reimbursement of the filing fee, compensation and exemplary damages for: a. Breaches of s45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947; and b. Failure to provide healthy homes and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement; c. Breaches of their quiet enjoyment; and d. Failure to provide a signed tenancy agreement and the statutorily required information.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide a signed copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenants before the tenancy commenced?

The tenancy agreement was signed by both parties on 20 January 2022, and the tenancy commenced on 10 February 2022.
The tenant says he did not get a copy of the signed agreement before the tenancy commenced.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has provided evidence that the signed tenancy agreement and a photograph of the keys and the water meter was emailed to the tenant on 16 February 2022, 6 days after the tenancy commenced.
The tenants say there was no tenancy agreement was provided to them after they signed it on 20 January 2022, until the email on 16 February 2022.
The landlord says it is not sure how the tenancy agreement was signed, as sometimes people sign in the system and some sign on a hard copy and return it. The landlord’s records show the tenant sent the signed tenancy agreement to the property managers, via email, on 20 January 2022. The original unsigned copy was sent to the tenants via the TPS portal.
The landlord says they sent the tenants a copy of the signed tenancy agreement on 20 January 2022 at 7pm, to the same email address the tenant sent their signed copy from. The email address this was sent to was info@odlconstruction.co.nz. The tenant confirmed he no longer has access to this email address to check.
The landlord sent the registry a copy of the alleged 20 January 2022 email today. I can confirm the email with the tenancy agreement was not forwarded to the tenant on 20 January 2022. The email chain clearly shows the email with the tenancy agreement was sent to the tenants on 16 February 2022 at 7:44pm.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has proved he did not receive a signed copy of the tenancy agreement before the tenancy commenced. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenants with a written and signed tenancy agreement before the tenancy commenced and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord is an experienced property management company that explained its normal processes to the Tribunal, but clearly did not follow them in this instance. It should have reasonably known that it is required by law to provide the tenant with a written and signed tenancy agreement prior to the tenancy commencing and it did not; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the landlord’s obligation to provide the tenant with a written and signed tenancy agreement so that he is aware of his rights and responsibilities, as well as the landlord’s obligations to him; c. t is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations provide tenants with written and signed tenancy agreements for the protection of both parties’ interests. Healthy homes standards information and smoke alarm information
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a compliance statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 also requires that the landlord provide a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did receive a very general insulation statement. That statement is bereft of any details about the ceiling and underfloor insulation in the premise and it does not confirm whether the insulation meets the required standard. The tenant also did not receive any of the required healthy homes information for the other four healthy homes standards. As such, the tenant had no idea when he took on the tenancy, whether the premises was fully healthy homes compliant and/or whether any exemptions apply to the premise.
The landlord says it used a standard template it had downloaded from Tenancy Services. It says it was not aware that the template had changed, so it thought it was complying with the law and that the compliance statement covered all healthy homes standards areas. In addition, the landlord says they did not provide the detailed healthy homes information to the tenant, as it had a healthy homes assessment report that confirms the house was compliant at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, it considered the compliance statement was sufficient.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA.
I find the landlord intentionally breached 13A(1CA) of the RTA and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that it is required by to provide the tenants with healthy homes information with a written tenancy agreement; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on their statutory right to receive information about whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements. This was particularly important in this case as the landlord was aware the tenants were new migrants to New Zealand that had very limited knowledge of New Zealand residential tenancy law; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have healthy homes compliance information given to them prior to the commencement of the tenancy so they can make an informed decision whether or not to rent a non- compliant premise.
I find that 100 percent of the maximum available exemplary damage quantum of $750.00 is appropriate given the tenants have proven the premise was not fully healthy homes compliant and they were denied the opportunity to forgo this rental offered to them because it did not meet the healthy homes standards and the smoke alarm regulations. Insurance information in the tenancy agreement
The tenant says the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises as part of the tenancy agreement.
Section 13A(2) of the RTA states “the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: a. If the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and b. If the premises are insured, a statement: i. setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and ii. informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or66J(5))”.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord says it agrees that the insurance information was not in the tenancy agreement, but the breach was not intentional as this was the property manager’s first tenancy after it took on the business and it was not aware of this legal requirement. It paid for the template documents as part of the business and these documents were on the TPS software.
During the tenancy the landlord made a claim on its insurance because a korero bird (wood pigeon) flew into the window and broke it. This insurance claim was made on 1 March 2023. The landlord says at this time the tenants were aware of the insurance as this insurance covered this damage.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the required insurance information, prescribed by sections 13A(2) and 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, but that it did so as it was not fully aware of its legislative obligation to do so as this was the first property that it had managed. Ignore of the law is no excuse when it comes to compliance with the RTA, but I cannot conclude that the breach was intentional.
The breach was a technical breach that the evidence shows: a. Had a negligible if any effect on the tenant, as the property is insured, had the tenant requested the insurance information it would have been provided; b. There were no claims made by the tenant that suggested the premises were not insured or that any issues occurred where the landlord had to rely on its insurance; c. It is not in the public interest for the Tribunal’s time to be taken up on technical breaches that have no effect.
As such, while the evidence proves a minor technical breach has occurred, I do not find it just to award the tenant exemplary damages for the breach.
Landlords are however required to understand their responsibilities to tenants, and I acknowledge this by awarding a compensatory sum of $150.00 as it is in the public interest for the Tribunal to dissuade landlords from failing to educate themselves on their responsibilities to their tenants under the RTA. Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?
The tenants say the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the RTA obligations to him.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires the landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenant says the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The landlord says the tenant was with them when the entry inspection was carried out on 9 February 2022, and that photograph 8 of the exterior shows the tenant in the picture and 159 Dining room 12 and 214 the new room. Each time the tenant is out beside the pool and not in the house.
The tenant says there was a lot of garden work to be done when they moved in and he and his team undertook this work before the tenancy commenced and it is in the invoice dated 28 June 2022 from ODL Construction Ltd.
The tenant showed the Tribunal text messages dated 26 January 2022 where the parties are discussing the purchase of the beds and whether they can offset the costs of the beds with the cost of their labour in the garden. The tenant’s say that the invoice should be dated 26 January 2022 and not 26 June 2022.
The pre-entry inspection report has a different date on the bottom of it and the landlord says that is the date they downloaded the report from the palace system for submission to the Tribunal.
On balance, I prefer the tenant’s explanation that they were at the property undertaking garden work and were not there for the purpose of going through a pre-tenancy property inspection with the property managers.
The property inspection report does not have any status or comments inserted. The landlord says it is its practice not to do this and that it relies solely on the photographs, unless there is a major issue. Leak 1- Burst Pipe
The tenant says that in January 2024 he and his wife could hear what he thought was a water pipe making a noise in the kitchen, but they couldn’t see any water or physical damage. A week later, 25 January 2024, the pipe burst overnight. The tenant woke up to the lounge and kitchen flooded. He sent the property manager a text. The property manager had a plumber come the same day to fix the pipe.
The parties confirmed the insurer’s assessor came on 8 February 2024 and produced text messages to prove this claim.
Three insurer’s contractors came on 14 February 2024 and removed the gib and insulation, disconnected the lights in the kitchen and the lounge, disconnected two power points in the kitchen and two in the lounge, and removed the gib and framing in the wall of the kitchen and lounge. The tenant had to remove his television off the wall, and there were no lights in the lounge.
The insurance assessor came back the next day and did moisture readings, which were high, and hired a commercial dehumidifier to dry out the gib and framing before any remedial work could be done.
The insurer returned to moisture test again after about a week of using the dehumidifier and found it was dry. The tenants were told someone would be back to fix all the disconnected and dissembled areas in the next week, but no one came.
The landlord says the tenant did not inform it that there was an issue with the power and gib nor that he had not had communication with the owner, its insurer or the insurers assessor and contractors. Therefore, the landlord is not liable for the insurer’s contractors had not undertaken this remedial work as it was not told the work had not been done until 25 March 2024. Further, the landlord says that it should not be held responsible for the lack of communication between the insurer and the property owners.
The tenant says he acted under the reasonable belief the property manager was working with the owner and its insurer to get the work remediated in a reasonable timeframe.
On 25 March 2024, the tenant sent the landlord a text message confirming that the lack of lights, power points and gib was causing them issues and asked for it to be fixed. The tenant offered to have these fixed by his contractors and the landlord agreed. The landlord thought that all it was responsible for after this time was to paint the walls.
The tenant used his own contractors to repair the lights, power points, gib, insulation and framing in March 2024.
After the gib was fixed, the landlord wanted to have its own contractors do the plaster and paint work. On Friday 12 April 2024 the landlord sent a text message asking if the painters can come on 14 April 2024. The tenant replies that the walls have not been gibed yet and it should be completed next weekend. The tenant was under the belief that his contractors would be doing the gib and plaster work.
The power was restored at the end of April 2024.
The landlord showed a photograph dated 5 May 2024 from the painter, sent by text message that shows the tenants had put up gib in the kitchen and lounge and they had undertaken the first coat of plastering.
On 6 May 2024 the tenant says he was informed the owner wanted to use its own contractors to do the plastering as well as the painting and the tenant had to turn his plasterer away as he had already arranged for the work to be completed that day and was told at the last minute the landlord wanted to use its own contractor.
The tenant produced a text message dated 22 May 2024, that confirms the tenant is still waiting on the finishing touches of the plastering and painting to be completed.
The tenant says the work was completed by 4 June 2024, when the owner and the property manager came to check the repairs that had been fully completed. The landlord claims the work was completed by 26 May 2024, based on the text message from the contractors.
The property manager provided the insurance information it had received from the owner, and as directed by Adjudicator King on 6 December 2024. The insurance information provided is scant. It proves the owners had agreed to a lump sum settlement and the insurer did not have much of a timeline of works completed.
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the period he had the stress and inconvenience they suffered from when the pipe burst on 25 January 2024 and the loss of the full amenity of the kitchen and part of the lounge area the 25 January 2024 to 26 May 2024 (17 weeks and 3 days). The tenants reasonably expected to be able to have full use of their kitchen and lounge and were also without power to these areas from 14 February 2024 to 25 March 2024 I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $200.00 per week for the period 25 January 2024 to 26 May 2024 that they suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience related leak 1. $200.00 x 17 =$3,400.00. $200.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 3 is $85.72. The rent rebate ordered is $3,485.72.
While I find that the tenant and his family suffered loss of amenity, inconvenience, and stress from this breach, I am not satisfied the tenant has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that this breach was intentional. The landlord has proven the issues were investigated in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and it took some time for the insurer to work through its administrative processes before the owners and insurer could remedy the issues found. Therefore, I find it is not appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages. Leak 2- Heat pump wall
The tenants say on 19 June 2024 they noticed a smell and moved the couch and found the carpet was damp and a few days later the wallpaper started to fall off and that is when they raised this issue with the landlord. The tenant hired a commercial dehumidifier and fan at $210.00 for three days. This cost has not been reimbursed to the tenant.
The landlord says they did not pay this cost as the tenant arranged this without its permission, so they are not liable for the tenant’s invoice and that it was the tenant's responsibility is to notify the landlord immediately and they may have used a different supplier at a cheaper price. It says that even if the dehumidifier was hired for the landlord’s benefit, they still refuse to pay this cost.
On 24 June 2024, the tenant reported the issue to the landlord via email.
On 25 June 2024, the landlord had a carpet cleaner come to professionally clean the carpet. He lifted the carpet and put a fan under it to dry the carpet out as the leak had travelled a long way. The landlord says that it believed the carpet was dry from this date.
The tenant says the carpet was not dry and was left lifted to allow it to continue to dry out. In addition, the wallpaper was off, there was a hole in the ceiling, the underlay was mouldy and growing mushrooms, and the room was smelly and not usable up to the last day of the tenancy.
The landlord says that on 1 July 2024, the tenant’s sent a text message saying an insurance assessor had called them to make a time to do an insurance assessment of the damage for the owner’s insurance claim.
The insurance assessor’s conclusion was that the cause of the leak was the air conditioner water leaking backwards. The tenant has a building contractor business that undertakes repairs and renovations, he did not believe the air conditioner was the cause of the leak, so he had his contractors come to assess the damage and investigate the cause of the leak and advise him what needed t be done to fix the leak and remediate the water related damage. The contractor informed the tenant that the leak was not because of a faulty air conditioner, and to fix it the leak the landlord needed to install a new flashing with a lead line that could be shaped around where the leak was coming from up on the roof.
The contractor that wrote the 30 August 2024 report was a water proofer not a builder and could not undertake the work.
The landlord says they accepted the insurance assessor’s opinion that the leak was from the air conditioner, and they took steps to remediate that as the issue.
After this work was done, the landlord says there had been no more leaks as there had been no more heavy rain and the leak only appeared after heavy rain.
On 23 July 2024, the tenant sent the landlord an email to confirm his contractor did not agree the leak was coming from the air conditioner.
On 24 July 2024, the landlord arranged for another building professional to go to the premise, and the tenant and the landlord’s building professional concluded that the leak might be due to there not being enough downpipe. The landlord then installed the downpipe. This builder also recommended that a small hole be made to monitor if downpipe had fixed the issue and if not, to help the builder to monitor where the water is coming from. This required the tenant to monitor the leak and report any reoccurrence to the landlord immediately. The landlord says it never heard of any leak issues again.
On 1 August 2024, the landlord says it followed up with tenant, and asked him if there had been any further leaks. He responded there was “no water on the floor but didn’t get much rain last night compared to the other times, but he thinks it’s still leaking a bit”. The landlord asked him to keep monitoring the situation because the only way to test if the remedial work had been successful was after heavy rain.
The landlord says that because the carpet and wall had dried out and had been commercially cleaned that the tenant could recommence using the room.
On 19 August 2024, the landlord says the tenant advised it the leak had returned and it was quite bad.
On 20 August 2024, the landlord arranged another leak detention professional and received a report on the contractor’s findings on 30 August 2024.This report from Waterproofing Solutions confirms the following causes of the leak: a. The poor apron detail leak is exacerbated by the fact the new downpipe spreader still feeds water from the downpipe directly onto the apron termination. Ideally the downpipe should be extended to take the upper water directly to the gutter. A spreader at this point would be ideal; b. There is a split weatherboard adjacent to the ensuite window that should be repaired; c. While not appearing to be causing leaks, the sealant joint around the toilet overflow vent is degraded and we recommend it is cut out and replaced. Toilet overflow penetration very close to apron flashing upstand behind cladding. Sealant joint at this point should be renewed; d. The retaining wall outside the lounge is currently in contact with the weatherboard cladding. This is poor practice and can accelerate degradation of the timber weatherboards at this point. Ideally the retaining wall should be modified so it is not in contact with the timber elements.
The landlord says the owners gave approval for all this work to be completed as soon as possible.
On 16 September 2024, there was a heavy rain, and the landlord texted the tenant to ask if there were any further leaks and got no response. The landlord then knocked on the tenant’s door without prior notification to ask permission to go into the house to check for leaks after the recent heavy rainfall.
The tenant’s daughter opened the door and gave the landlord permission to enter the house to check if there were still any visible leaks. The landlord says the carpet and wall were dry.
The tenant text the landlord on 19 September 2024 to confirm there were no visible leaks and advised the leak only happens if the wind is north easterly when it rains and that the wind had not been north easterly during the recent heavy rain. Consequently, the parties were not sure if the cause of the leak had been fully resolved.
The tenant says on the day he moved out, being 9 October 2024, the wall was still leaking and was damp and the gib needed to be removed and dried out. In addition, he confirmed that for that last month of the tenancy, he had to put a tarp on the roof to ensure no further leaks occurred. The tenant also stated that his contractor confirmed the fix required a new flashing with a lead line that could be shaped around where the leak was coming in.
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate of $150.00 per week for the period he had the stress and inconvenience they suffered from 24 June 2024 to 9 October 2024 (15 weeks and 2 days) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience caused by leak 2. $150.00 x 15 =$2,250.00. $150.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 2 is $42.86. The rent rebate ordered is $2,292.86.
While I find that the tenant and his family suffered loss of amenity, inconvenience and stress from this breach, I am not satisfied the tenant has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that this breach was intentional. The landlord has proven it had the issues investigated in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and took steps to remedy the issues found. Therefore, I find it is not appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages. No hot water in kitchen
The tenant says the kitchen has its own hot water cylinder that failed. The hot water cylinder tripped the power in the whole house and needed to be disconnected until it was repaired or replaced.
The tenant had no hot water in kitchen from 25 December 2022 to around the 6 February 2023, being 6 weeks and 1 day.
There were complications in remediating the issue. At first the wrong sized cylinder was ordered and then the various contractors were nor working cohesively. This caused delays.
The tenant says they had no hot water at all in the kitchen for 6 weeks and 1 day and they had to take hot water from other areas of the house and transfer it to the kitchen.
The landlord says the issue occurred around Christmas, when it was hard to get supplies and contractors and it addressed the issue as soon as it could. The hot water cylinder was of small size and needed to be ordered and then installed in the cupboard.
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the period he had the stress and inconvenience they suffered from when the hot water cylinder failed on 25 December 2022 to when the new one was installed on 6 February 2023, being 6 weeks and 1 day for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $100.00 per week for the period 25 January 2024 to 26 May 2024 that they suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience related leak 1. $100.00 x 6 =$600.00. $100.00 divided by 7 is $14.29. The rent rebate ordered is $614.29.
While I find that the tenant and his family suffered loss of amenity, inconvenience and stress from this breach, I am not satisfied the tenant has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that this breach was intentional. The landlord has proven it had the issues investigated in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and took steps to remedy the issues found. Therefore, I find it is not appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages.
Healthy Homes Standards Compliance
The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy agreement commenced 10 February 2022. As such, the landlord was required to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards from the 90th day after the tenancy commenced, being Wednesday 11 May 2022.
The landlord says prior to this tenancy the premise was owner occupied, so the landlord commissioned a healthy homes assessment and a report. After the report the landlord installed a heat pump and got an exemption for the fan in the two upstairs bathrooms.
The landlord commissioned a healthy homes assessment report, dated 13 January 2022. This report proves the premise complied all five of the healthy homes’ standards at the start of the tenancy and a certificate of compliance was issued.
The tenant confirmed he did not receive this report at the start of the tenancy and the tenancy agreement does not have all the required healthy homes standards details within it. The first time the tenant saw the healthy homes assessment report and the compliance certificate was when the landlord produced it in evidence to the Tribunal for these proceedings.
The tenant did not believe the rental premise met the ventilation standard and as the tenancy agreement did not contain most of the healthy homes information it is statutorily required to contain, the tenant was left being unsure whether the premise complied with this standard or not.
The tenant confirmed he never asked for any healthy homes’ information as his prior tenancy of 4 years was before the healthy homes standards came into effect and the requirements were new to him.
The tenant says the minor dwelling does not comply with any of the healthy homes standards and no assessment report has been done on it. It has no heating, no externally venting extractor fans in the kitchenette and bathroom and no smoke alarms. The landlord says the minor dwelling is a pool house and not for living in or sleeping in. The landlord has confirmed that it still has not done a healthy homes assessment done on this minor dwelling.
The property manager said the tenant was aware that they could not use the pool house as a dwelling and if the property inspection showed the tenant was using this space as a bedroom, she would have told them it was not designed for this purpose and did not meet healthy homes standard. Ventilation Standard
The tenant withdrew this claim as based on the Healthy Homes Assessment report the landlord has complied with the HHS ventilation standard as the two upstairs bathrooms in the main house are exempt and the lower level bathroom is ventilated.
The ventilation standard requires that a premise must have openable windows in the living room, dining room, kitchen, and bedrooms. Kitchens and bathrooms must have externally venting extractor fans or an acceptable continuous mechanical ventilation system that are externally vented.
The landlord’s healthy homes assessment report and compliance certificate shows that when the report was done, the house met the ventilation standard. It is possible that when the tenants’ healthy homes assessment report was completed that in the twelve months between the assessments, there was a block in the bathroom extractor fan that was preventing the exhaust airflow coming through the ducting pipes. The tenants have claimed there is a large rat in the ceiling that has been resident for much of their tenancy, and it is possible it has a nest in the ducting pipe. In addition, the tenants accepted that the two large sliding windows became harder and harder to open freely to the point thy are now essentially stuck shut and they cannot be locked as the house had dropped.
I find the issues raised by the tenants relate to failure to repair and maintain the premise rather than breaches of the healthy homes’ standards.
I dismiss the tenants claim for breach of the ventilation standard and do not consider an award of compensation for a failure to repair and maintain is appropriate as these issues were not brought to the landlord’s attention until 2 days prior to the hearing. Smoke alarms- breach of TA and breach of regulations
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenants claim the rental premise had only one working smoke alarm when the tenants moved in and no further alarms were installed during the tenancy.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Smoke alarms must be installed: i. within 3 metres of each bedroom door, or in every room where a person sleeps; ii. in each level or storey of a multi-storey or multi-level home; iii. in all rental homes, boarding houses, rental caravans, and self- contained sleep-outs. b. All new smoke alarms must: i. be photoelectric; ii. have a battery life of at least eight years, or be hard-wired; iii. installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions; iv. meet international standards. c. Existing smoke alarms do not need to be replaced if they are working, and have not passed the expiry date. d. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. e. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
The premise was advertised as a four-living area, five bedrooms, three bathrooms, laundry and a minor dwelling outside with two bedrooms and a kitchenette and a bathroom. This minor dwelling has no smoke alarms or ventilation and was not assessed or mentioned in the 13 January 2022 healthy homes assessment report.
The upstairs of the main dwelling where the bedrooms are located had two correctly spaced smoke alarms, between two bedrooms on the left and right but had no batteries in them and had not been tested before the tenancy commenced and did not work. The tenant assumed these did work so did not test them as they were hard to reach.
After the tenants started to look at alternative rental properties they came back and looked at these smoke alarms and found there were no batteries in these smoke alarms, and they looked like they were over 10 years old.
The tenants say there was no smoke alarm in the minor dwelling or in the lower level of the two-story main house. For example, there is no smoke alarm in the main kitchen. The tenant produced a video that proves there were no smoke alarms on the lower level of the main house and that this level had one of the five bedrooms in it. The remaining four bedrooms were upstairs.
The landlord says this minor dwelling is a pool house that is not supposed to be for living in.
The tenant produced an advertisement dated 8 November 2024 that claims “this is 5 bedroom, 3.5 bathroom, including a spacious master suite with 4 living arears and a double internal access garage and a minor dwelling that is fully self- contained with an oversized bedroom, kitchenette with bar fridge, bathroom, and storage room- ideal for guests or extended family”.
The landlord says the tenancy agreement provides for a maximum of 5 persons to reside at the premise and that was the tenant, his partner and three children. It says the children are named in the tenancy agreement. The tenant says his daughter did not live there and that his nephew did for a period of around 3 months. He says he should be able to use the minor dwelling for a bedroom and it should be healthy homes compliant.
The landlord says if the tenant had raised the issue of the smoke alarms this would have been remedied and he did not raise it.
The tenant says the smoke alarms should be checked at the start of each tenancy and at each property inspection and they were never checked.
The landlord says that routine property inspections are not required by law but is required by insurance and in these inspections, they do a quick walk through to assess any major issues and require the tenant to report repair and maintenance issues. It confirmed they never checked the smoke alarms during the tenancy.
The landlord says that when the premise was re-tenanted, it engaged a third party to check the smoke alarms and the batteries were replaced in the two upstairs. This provider installed a new smoke alarm in the lounge downstairs but none in the minor dwelling. This proves the smoke alarms were not working at the end of the tenancy and that there were no smoke alarms in the lower level of the main house.
The tenant says his nephew lived in one of the minor dwelling bedrooms for at least three months of the tenancy and the other room was used as a gym. The property managers submitted that they have undertaken regular property inspections every three months and there was never any evidence that any one was sleeping in the minor dwelling. Therefore, the minor dwelling did not require a smoke alarm to be installed.
The property managers say that they relied on the third-party healthy homes assessment report that states the premise has working some alarms, within 3 metres of each bedroom and that they are compliant. The landlord says that it should be able to rely on this assessment report, given that it was only completed on 13 January 2022, being less than one month before the tenancy was to commence.
I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premises were fitted with sufficient numbers of working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA.
Breaching any of the landlord’s s45 obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.
In order to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal has to be satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally, and it would be just to award exemplary damages, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,800.00 in exemplary damages (one quarter of the maximum penalty available) because: a. the landlord failed to provide sufficient numbers of smoke alarms in every room where a person sleeps and in each level of the multi-storey home and subjected the tenant, his partner and their children to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives; b. the tenant and his family subjected to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives and should have been able to rely on the landlord to meet its obligations under the RTA and associated regulations; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and risk to their health and wellbeing; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to provide smoke alarms to tenants for every room a person sleeps in and in every level and to record details about these accurately in a written tenancy agreement. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant’s claims are based on three separate incidents as follows: Incident 1
The tenant confirmed that on 27 February 2024, he sent an email to the property manager asking her to get the owners to change the address of their company as the IRD had questioned him why the owner’s property development company and the tenants construction company were both registered to the same address.
The tenant says he was being inconvenienced by the owners coming to the house to collect their mail and that the owner had called into the house a few days prior, without any prior notice, to collect his mail.
The property manager stated the owners changed their address on the Companies Office website on 14 November 2022, so the tenants should not have been getting their business mail.
The tenant says the owners have never changed their address, so they came around from time to time to collect mail without notification. They came at least 3 times to the door. The tenant’s neighbour also reported them coming around looking in the letterbox a few times.
The tenant produced some text messages from February 2024 that he had sent to the property manager asking it to get the owner to collect his mail as the mail volume was building up.
The property manager said the owners would not have gone to the property without any notice as the owner would not know when there was mail to collect. However, the tenants say the owners did turn up, knocked on the door and asked if there was any mail three times.
The tenant says the owners also turned up and rode the tenant’s children’s bike and met the tenant’s dog and they were not sure why the owners were there unannounced. The landlord says the owners did go to see the neighbours a few times, after the neighbours complained about the tenant’s dog running on the property and the tenant’s truck making a hole in the shared driveway. The owners may have decided to speak to the tenants while they were there. Incident 2
On 19 September 2024, there was a heavy rain, and the parties confirms the landlord texted the tenant to ask if there were any further leaks and got no response.
The landlord says it was trying to monitor the leak, which was only evident during heavy rain fall and these rainfalls were not happening frequently.
The landlord confirms it went to the premise and knocked on the tenant’s door, without prior notification, to ask permission to go into the house to check for leaks.
The landlord confirmed the tenant’s daughter opened the door and gave the landlord permission to enter the house to check if there were still any visible leaks. The landlord says it was inside for less than 3 minutes and found the carpet and walls were dry. The landlord says the tenant’s daughter was happy and not demonstrating that she was concerned in any way. Incident 3
The tenants say on a further date that they cannot recall, after the tenants received the termination notice, the landlord turned up to take photographs of the outside of the property without notification. The tenant’s daughter was surprised by persons taking photographs outside her window and called her parents to say that she was frightened.
The landlord denies this. It does say that it went to the premise twice to look at the leak only and this may have been the second time. It says it did not take photographs outside. It says further that it tried to call the tenant a few times before going to the premise but got no answer. Therefore, it decided to just go to check on whether the leak continued to be an issue.
I find the landlord intentionally committed three unlawful acts by going to the tenant’s home without giving him the courtesy of letting him know it was going to come by to investigate the leak or the owner was coming to collect mail.
Even though the tenant’s daughter allowed access to the property manager, the tenant says his daughter was anxious about the property manager and/or owners just turning up announced. In addition, the tenant says that it was inconvenient having the owners randomly arriving to collect mail or requiring the tenant to leave the owners mail in bags in the letter box.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 in exemplary damages (half the maximum penalty available) because: a. The landlord knew it should not be coming to the premises uninvited and carrying out tasks that it had not informed the tenants it was going to do; b. The tenant and his wife and children felt harassed and that the property manager was disrespectful of his family’s desire for peace, privacy, and quiet enjoyment of the property they were paying rent for; c. it is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the breach of privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching its obligations to allow tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $750.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA. accordingly. Termination without grounds
On 12 September 2024, the property manager sent the tenant an email informing him that the property owners were intending to terminate the tenancy so they could undertake repairs and renovations. The tenant says he started looking for a new property after he received this email as he, his wife, children and their businesses meant they had very specific needs in a property that may be hard to find.
The tenant confirmed he received a 90-day termination notice on 16 September 2024, ending the tenancy on 16 December 2024. The reason given for the termination notice was that the owners wanted to undertake extensive alterations, refurbishments, repairs or redevelopment of the premise or renovations that would not be practicable to undertake when the tenants were living there. The termination notice also confirmed the tenant could move out earlier than 16 December 2024, without having to give 28 days’ notice.
On 1 October 2024 the tenants gave 1 weeks’ notice and moved out on 9 October 2024.
The tenant says three weeks after he moved out, the property was advertised on Trade me for rent at $2,000.00 per week and that the advertisement said the house had been renovated inside and outside.
The tenant says he can tell from the photographs that no renovation work done, only minor repairs that could have been done while his tenancy continued.
The landlord says it advertised the property for rent on 14 November 2024, five weeks after the tenant’s tenancy had ended. It also provided invoices that proves it fully investigated and repaired the sources of the leak area, as recommended by the Waterproofing Solution report, it repaired the balcony, it fully repainted the inside and outside of the house, some locks were replaced, window latches were fixed, and the upstairs bathroom tiles were cleaned, repaired and re-siliconed. The invoice dates show these renovations took around 5 weeks to complete and that the renovations would have been disruptive to the tenant and his family’s quiet enjoyment if they had remained in the house during that period. In addition, the landlord says the renovations would have taken far longer if the tenancy had remained on foot.
The landlord confirmed that the new tenants moved into the property 17 January 2025, after all the repair and maintenance work had been fully completed.
The property manager says that after receiving the report from Waterproofing Solutions on 30 August 2024, the owners discussed this body of works with its contractors. They were advised that the works would take around two months to complete. In addition, on 13 September 2024, a second builder that had been engaged by the owners and had been helping to investigate and remediate the leak and text the property manager to tell her he was going to stop the job as he the work required was far more complicated than expected and he needed to discuss it further with her and the owners.
The landlord says the tenant’s own evidence shows that the leaks were still ongoing at this time and the landlord was finding it difficult to locate and fully remediate all the potential sources of the leak. By 16 September 2024, the landlord says it was still not sure if the leak was fixed, even though it had been dry for a while. It submits that it was reasonable for the owners to want to have more extensive investigations of the fragile cedar external walls, the flashing, the roof and internal walls, to ensure all potential leak areas were addressed fully and the leak issues resolved once and for all.
I am satisfied that the property managers and the owners had been trying to investigate and remediate the leak, and that the cause had eluded them. I am also satisfied that the property managers and owners made a considered decision to act on the recommendations set out in the Waterproof Solutions 30 August 2024 report and that they held a reasonable belief that their contractors would have greater ease of access to fully investigate and remediate all potential leak sources if the tenant and his family were not living in the house. For this reason, I do not accept that the tenancy was ended without grounds.
The tenant’s claim for compensation, general damages and/or exemplary damages for termination without grounds is dismissed for lack of evidence proving, on the balance of probabilities, that there were no lawful grounds to terminate the tenancy. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
At the 11 March 2025 hearing, the landlord withdrew its claims for pool maintenance costs and the cost of repairing a wall.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 9 October 2024.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant still owed $1,668.48 in water rates arrears and $8,270.00 rent arrears.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove these amounts were still owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has not disputed owing these amounts.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord submits the tenant caused damage to the door during the tenancy, requiring the door to be replaced, and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
During the exit inspection the landlord found a hole in the master bedroom door. It sent an email to the tenants on 10 October 2024, sending a photograph of the damage and informed the tenant that it would get someone in to fix the door and would send the tenant the invoice.
The tenant replied that the hole was in the door on the commencement of the tenancy. He explained that the door to the ensuite in the master bedroom had always had a hole in it and had never been repaired and he initially thought that was the hole he was referring to.
When the landlord sent the tenant comparison photographs, to prove the damage occurred during the tenancy, the tenant realised it was not the ensuite door. He stated that the damage must have happened when his belongings were being moved, out the hole was not there during the tenancy.
The tenant has claimed that the invoice was too expensive, he could have purchased and installed a new door for $30.00 and he was not given the opportunity to go back and fix it.
The landlord provided an invoice for the door repair which records the cost is $953.00 plus GST, being $1,095.95. The landlord says that this cost is higher as it is a veneer door. The landlord showed one of its suppliers of that door and the cost was $649.00 (GST inclusive), so it says the cost was reasonable with the labour, delivery, and disposal cost.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, it was more than fair wear and tear and the landlord is entitled to recover the cost it incurred having the damage remediated by its chosen contractors.
I uphold the landlord’s claim and award it compensation of $1,095.95.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenant has been substantially succeeded with his claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has also been substantially succeeded with its claims so I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in his proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest and justified because of the tenant’s conduct.
Nonpublication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5021254 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5021254 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions