What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5066448 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 5066448?

Compensation: fail to maintain - sew…: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failed to maintain - w…: $2,600.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: interference peace, co…: $250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5066448?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5066448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11933709-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5066448 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 5066448?

Compensation: fail to maintain - sew…: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failed to maintain - w…: $2,600.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: interference peace, co…: $250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5066448?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5066448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11933709-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5066448 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5066448 — net $4,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: fail to maintain - sewerage	$1,300.00	fail to maintain - sewerage
Compensation: interference peace, comfort, privacy	$250.00	interference peace, comfort, privacy
Compensation: failed to provide cleaning and rubbish	$250.00	failed to provide cleaning and rubbish
Compensation: failed to maintain - water contamination	$2,600.00	failed to maintain - water contamination
Net award	$4,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,400.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5066448 — net $4,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: fail to maintain - sewerage	$1,300.00	fail to maintain - sewerage
Compensation: interference peace, comfort, privacy	$250.00	interference peace, comfort, privacy
Compensation: failed to provide cleaning and rubbish	$250.00	failed to provide cleaning and rubbish
Compensation: failed to maintain - water contamination	$2,600.00	failed to maintain - water contamination
Net award	$4,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,400.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The landlord must pay the tenant $4,000.00 immediately, as set out on the table below:

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 12 January 2024 and is periodic. The tenant’s application was filed on 11 November 2024. On 31 January 2025, the matter was set down for an all-day hearing. On 09 February 2025, the landlord filed a counterclaim. Both sets of matters were linked and listed for an in person hearing on 10 February 2025. On the morning of the hearing, the landlord advised that they were unwell and unable to attend Court. The matter was adjourned and relisted for 04 March 2025.
The hearing was conducted in Te Reo Māori. Unfortunately, just after the luncheon adjournment, the interpreter had to leave due to personal reasons. As a result, the matter was adjourned and rescheduled for 02 May 2025.
[ Suppressed] Property Manager, for [ Suppressed Agent] appeared for the landlord. The tenants also appeared. The Tribunal was again assisted by the Te Reo interpreter who had attended at the previous hearing.
The tenant’s claims are that the landlord has: i. Failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair (sewerage system), ii. Failed to provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness, iii. Failed to provide curtains, iv. Failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standard for heating, insulation, smoke alarms, ventilation, drainage, moisture ingress, and draught stopping. v. Failed to provide an adequate means for the collection and storge of water free from contamination, vi. Unlawfully entered the property, vii. Permitted breaches of their right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, amounting to harassment.
On 26 March 2025, the tenant filed an additional claim concerning water contamination, increasing the compensation sought from $45,000.00 to over $100,000.00. As the Tribunal can only make awards of up to $100,000.00, the amendment took the claim outside its jurisdiction. Following a discussion and a brief adjournment, the tenant advised that they wished to have the claims dealt with before the Tribunal and accepted its jurisdiction. In addition to compensation, the tenant also seeks exemplary damages.
The landlord’s counterclaim is that the tenant is liable for unpaid water rates and a damaged swimming liner and pool cover.
The onus of proving a claim rest with the party making it. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. Each party must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Act. Tenants claim
The property has six bedrooms and five bathrooms, a kitchen, lounge, dining room, laundry, and a double garage. There is also a separate studio / storage space. The property is located rurally and has a large lawn area.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the sewerage system, and that a leak from one of the sewerage pipes beneath one of the bathrooms caused a strong and unpleasant odour. The tenant states the odour made the occupants unwell and rendered the rooms nearby unusable.
The tenant states that on the first day of the tenancy, they noticed a strong unpleasant odour at the property. The tenant states that they raised this with the landlord on 18 January 2024, and again on 10 February 2024. The tenant states that the matter remained unresolved.
In July 2024, the tenant sent a short video to the landlord showing grey water spilling from underneath the house. The tenant states that despite raising the issue repeatedly that nothing was done.
On or about 01 November 2024, the tenant contacted the local council. An email has been produced from the council advising that they should consider avoiding the main bathroom until the matter was resolved. The tenant states they advised the landlord, after which a plumber attended, and the issue was remedied.
The landlord states they visited the property on 10 February 2024 but could not detect an odour in or around the house or the bathroom concerned. The landlord states that the property has a septic tank system, that they inspected the tanks but again could not detect any odour. On 21 February 2024, the landlord arranged for the septic tanks to be emptied.
Following the advice in March 2024, a plumber visited the property on 07 March 2024 and cleared a gully trap which had become blocked, which had caused grey water from the kitchen to spill onto the ground. There was another visit by the plumber on 10 April 2024, but no other faults were detected.
During an inspection in June 2024, the tenant stated they again reported an odour coming from underneath the house. The landlord acknowledges that an inspection took place in June but denies the matter was raised at that time.
The landlord states that during an inspection on 29 September 2024, they personally detected an odour for the first time. The landlord reported this to the property owner. [ Property Manager] states he then went on leave and the matter was not immediately followed up.
On 05 November 2024, the same plumber who had attended in April returned and conducted a smoke test, which revealed a leak in the sewerage pipe connected to one of the downstairs ensuite bathrooms. The leak, located around a seal and not visible to the naked eye, likely caused intermittent odour. The seal was replaced and a follow up further smoke on 13 November 2024, did not detect any further issues.
The landlord states that for completeness a drainlayer also visited on 20 November 2024 and re checked the pipes to the septic tanks.
The landlord states that on or about 01 November 2024, they received a call from a council inspector regarding a possible sewerage issue. The landlord stated they informed the council that they were already aware of the matter and later confirmed that the issue had been resolved. The landlord added that they had not previously encountered a situation where the source of any leak or odour was so difficult to identify.
The tenant stated that leak was ultimately found in the location they had originally identified as the likely source of the odour. Law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will require an objective assessment. Decision
The material produced shows that the first written record of the issue being raised was in an email dated 10 February 2024. The issue in this case is whether, objectively assessed, the landlord acted appropriately in investigating and remedying any defect once they were advised of it.
Establishing a reliable chronology, as is often the case in these matters, has been challenging. Neither party have been able to produce written material clearly establishing an accurate record of when the matter was raised, and the steps taken to address it. Both parties have primarily relied on oral evidence, of which I find the landlord’s to be clearer and more consistent.
I am satisfied that the matter was raised in February 2024, and was finally remedied on or about 05 November 2024.
While I accept that the leak may have been difficult to detect, in my opinion the seven months it took to resolve the issue was unreasonable.
The landlord questioned whether odour alone could cause unwellness, noting apart from a record of work and school absences, there was no medical or scientific evidence confirming that the occupants unwellness was in fact caused by odour. I partly accept that submission. While odour may cause unwellness, there is in this case insufficient evidence that any unwellness suffered by the occupants was attributable to it. However, I am satisfied that due to the delay the tenant has suffered a loss of amenity, and I award the tenant compensation of $1,300.00. Interference with reasonable peace comfort and privacy and unlawful entry
The tenancy includes lawn mowing and pool maintenance, which is carried out by contractors on behalf of the landlord. The tenant claims that the conduct of the contractors has amounted to an interference with their reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. They also state that the [ Redacted] , and the tradespeople visiting the property to investigate the sewerage issue, interfered with their reasonable peace comfort, and privacy.
The lawns take over an hour to mow using a ride on mower, suggesting they are substantial. The tenant stated lawn mowing contractors visited about once a fortnight, that no notice or warning was given, there was no regular pattern, and they would mow the lawns on different days and times, including weekends and on public holidays. The tenant states that they raised the issue with the landlord “all the time”. They state they had spoken with the mowing contractor who had limited English but confirmed that they were engaged by the landlord.
The tenant states there was a steady stream of tradespeople who arrived at the property without notice. While some introduced themselves and explained the reason for their visit, most did not, which they considered disrespectful, and a breach of tikanga (the correct way). None of the tradespeople entered the house without the permission of the tenant. The tenant also stated there were occasions when they had been away and returned to find tradespeople on the property.
The tenant recounted an incident where, while breast feeding their baby, the pool cleaner had arrived without warning and walked past the window, triggering the tenant’s PTSD.
The property is surrounded by paddocks used for grazing. There is a gravel driveway about 50 metres from the house running along one of the property boundaries to one of the paddocks. Shortly after the commencement of the tenancy, a person, who they now know to be the [ Redacted], used the driveway to access the farm gate, and continued to do so regularly at various times of the day and night. The tenant states that the use of the driveway was not discussed by the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. However, the tenant acknowledged that they had not raised the matter until the hearing.
The tenant stated that at either the second or third property inspection, the property manager had entered without knocking.
The tenant also stated that they worked from the property and found the intrusions disruptive.
The landlord stated that as the contractors were not entering the house, they were not required to give notice to mow the lawns or clean the pool. However, they accepted that these tasks should be carried out without interfering with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
The landlord stated the contractors usually mowed the lawn when the weather permitted and had instructions to do so with minimal disruption to the tenant, adding that previously there had been no problems. The landlord was unaware that the contractor had mowed the lawn weekends and public holidays and acknowledged that they should not have done so.
The pool is joined to the house by a deck. The landlord stated that at the commencement of the tenancy the pool cleaner had been provided with the tenant’s number and instructed to liaise with the tenant directly. Having been advised of the incident with the pool cleaner, the landlord reminded the cleaner to liaise with the tenant beforehand.
Concerning the plumbers the landlord state that the landlord’s usual practice was to engage the appropriate tradespeople and provide contact details for the tenant, with the understanding that the contractor would liaise with the tenant directly. However, the landlord noted there were occasions when they had advised the tenant personally of visits.
The landlord states that action of the property manager entering the property without knocking had not been previously raised, and if it had occurred, it was regrettable. Law
Section 48 of the Act states that a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. Section 48(7) states that “premises” does not include the land or any facilities.
Section 38(1) of the Act provides that the tenant shall be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, though, or under the landlord or having superior title of the landlord.
Section 38(2) of the Act states that a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
The common law covenant for quiet enjoyment was set out in the case of Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499 (CA) in which Pearson LJ stated at 511: The implied covenant for quiet enjoyment is not an absolute covenant protecting a tenant against eviction or interference by anybody but is a qualified covenant protecting the tenant against interference with the tenant’s quiet and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises by the landlord or persons claiming through or under the landlord. The basis of it is that the landlord, by letting the premises, confers on the tenant the right of possession during the term and impliedly promises not to interfere with the tenant’s exercise and use of the right of possession during the term. I think the word ‘enjoy’ used in this connection is a translation from the Latin word ‘fruor’ and refers to the exercise and use of the right and having the full benefit of it, rather than to derive pleasure from it.
In Lucas v Patterson [2005] DCR 76 the Court considered that the common law convent, enshrined by section 38(1) of the Act, had been widened in section 38(2) with the inclusion of references to peace, comfort, and privacy.
In Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated, “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents”.
An interference that also amounts to harassment is an unlawful act.
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". See MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The question as to whether a tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy has been significantly impacted by the actions of the landlord will involve an objective assessment of the facts. Decision
There is no evidence of unlawful entry into the house.
Under the Act, a party who believes the other has breached the terms of the agreement or the provisions of the Act, unless the breach is so serious as to justify immediate termination, may issue a 14-day breach notice requiring the other party to cease any conduct or remedy any physical breach.
Apart from an email to the landlord on 06 November 2024, concerning a visit by a plumber who requested access to the house, which was declined, no breach notices have been issued. There are no other emails or text messages confirming that the matters have been raised.
I am satisfied that the incident involving the pool cleaner was a one-off interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. However, I am satisfied that once having been advised of the incident the landlord took appropriate action. The incident does not amount to harassment. I order the tenant $250.00 for loss of amenity.
While I agree with the tenant that tradespeople should identify themselves to the tenant upon entering the property, the tenant’s complaints are generalised and lack specific dates or times provided. As with the lawn mowing issue, the evidence is generalised and lacks specificity.
If this tenancy is to continue, it would be prudent for the landlord to establish a schedule for lawn mowing and pool maintenance.
As the sewerage issue has been remedied, it should no longer be an issue. I am not satisfied that the use of the driveway along the boundary has been raised previously. The claim is dismissed. Failed to meet the Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant claims the landlord failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards Regulations 2019 (“HHS”), for heating, insulation, smoke alarms, ventilation, drainage, moisture ingress, and draught stopping.
Section 45(1) (bb) requires the landlord to comply with the HHS, which set out the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, drainage, and draught stopping for residential rental properties.
The HHS standards for insulation and smoke alarms have applied to all rental properties since 01 July 2019.
The remaining HHS requirements covering heating, ventilation, drainage, moisture ingress, and draught stopping for this tenancy took effect on or about 11 May 2024, which was 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord has produced an HHS report dated 15 December 2024, which indicates that the property is HHS compliant in all aspects. No evidence has been produced by the tenant to rebut this report.
During the tenancy, the tenant also appears to have questioned whether the septic tank was adequate to service the property, however, there is insufficient evidence on this matter. Failed to provide curtains.
The tenant states that some of the windows had curtains while others did not. The tenant states that at the commencement of the tenancy they had been advised that renovations had yet to be completed. The tenant anticipated that once renovations were completed the missing curtains would be provided. However, the renovations had not been completed, and the curtains remained missing.
The tenant produced an email dated 18 January 2024 stating: “Curtains – I have talked to [ redacted] about curtains and she said the owners would like to keep the theme of the house, so im just wondering what that looks like in terms of timeline”.
The tenant states that the missing of curtains resulted in lack of privacy, which had been evident in the incident involving the pool cleaner.
The landlord states that the renovations referred to related painting the exterior of the property, which had not been completed. The landlord accepted that some of the windows had curtains and that the landlord had made a conscious decision not to have curtains on certain windows for aesthetic reasons. The landlord acknowledged receiving the tenant’s email and advising them that curtains would not be installed on those windows. The landlord also stated that the issue was not raised again and added that the tenant had the option of installing curtains themselves, and that the landlord would not object to them doing so.
There are no obligations under the Act or any other Act or Regulation providing that a landlord must provide curtains. However, if curtains are so provided, they must be provided in a reasonable condition, and at the end of the tenancy returned in a similar condition. Failing to provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness and remove all rubbish.
Under section 45(1) (a) of the Act the landlord must provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness and remove all rubbish.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. Determining whether the landlord has failed to provide the property reasonably clean and tidy, and free of all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment.
The tenant has produced photographs of the interior and exterior of the property, which they claim were taken at the commencement of the tenancy. They have also produced an email dated 18 January 2024, in which they raised concerns about the cleanliness of the property and removal of rubbish.
The photographs show that some areas inside have not been provided in a reasonable clean condition. Scattered around the section are various items, including concrete blocks, rocks, old paint tins, an old trough, bits of woods, and corrugated iron, which the tenant states have not been removed.
Having viewed the photographs, I am satisfied that landlord has failed to meet their obligations and that, as a result, the tenant has suffered a loss of amenity. I award compensation of $250.00. Failed to provide an adequate means for the collection and storge of water free from contamination.
The tenant stated they had been residing outside the area and had arranged for a family member to attend a viewing, during which they were video called. Based on that the tenant made an offer which was accepted. The first time they saw the property in person was when they collected the keys and moved in on 11 January 2024.
The tenant noted a small outbuilding building about 30 metres from the main house, which had not been mentioned in the advertisement or shown during the video call. Due to its proximity, the tenant requested the building be included in the tenancy, which was agreed with a small increase in the rent by $100.00 per week.
The landlord states that the building had been used by the previous occupant as a Pilates studio. The landlord stated that although the tenant could use the space as they chose, while it had a kitchenette and toilet, it was not considered as a self-contained dwelling suitable for sleeping or living in and was deemed suitable as a gym or for storage.
Apart from the tenant stating that occasionally they worked from home, the intended use of the space was not shared or discussed with the landlord. The tenant states that during the tenancy they used the studio for counselling and therapeutic services.
The tenant states that during the tenancy the occupants of the property had drank water from the tap in the studio and had become seriously unwell suffering gastrointestinal illnesses. The tenant switched to bottled drinking water and their unwellness subsided.
On or about 07 December 2024, the tenant advised the landlord. The landlord attended the property and took water samples from the taps inside the main house and the tap over the sink in the studio. The samples from the main house were analysed and found to be free of contamination. However, the water from the tap tested positive for e- coli. The landlord immediately advised the tenant not to drink the water from the tap in the studio.
The first time the landlord was notified of a possible issue with the water was on 07 December 2024.
There is no dispute that the tenant had not previously been advised not to drink the water from the tap in the studio.
The landlord states that the main house was on a mains water supply, and at the time they believed that the water to the studio was on the same supply. On that basis, they were surprised when the results for the studio returned positive for e-coli. The landlord stated that the property owner had also believed that the studio was on the mains supply.
The landlord arranged for a plumber to attend, who advised that the water to the studio was rainwater collected in a tank, and that the water was not filtered. Although the landlord immediately advised the tenant not to drink the water from the tap in the studio, it appears that the water remains unfiltered and untreated. Law
Under section 45(1)(c) of the Act, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety, such as those contained in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (“HIR”), and the Building Act 2004 (“Building Act”), which set out minimum standards for drinking water in residential properties.
Under section 45(1) (ca), if the property is not on a reticulated water supply (council supplied mains water), the landlord must provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water. Water / HIR
Regulation 7(2)(a) of the HIR states that the property must have an approved sink with a tap connected to an adequate supply of potable water.
Regulation 2 of the HIR defines potable water as water that is: (a) safe to drink; and (b) complies with the drinking water standards.
The “drinking water standards” are defined in the HIR as those made under section 47 of the Water Services Act 2021 (the “WSA”).
The Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022, made under section 47 of the WSA, state that the maximum acceptable level of E-coli in drinking water is less than 1 in 100ml sampled (less than 1 MPN/100ml).
Regulation 9(2) of the HIR states that every bathroom shall contain an approved bath or shower with an adequate supply of wholesome water. “Wholesome” is not defined in the HIR. Water / Building Act
Section 123 (1)(b) of the Building Act 2004 provides that a building is deemed unsanitary, “if it does not have a supply of potable water that is adequate for its intended use”.
As in the HIR potable water is defined as water that is safe to drink and complies with the drinking water standards.
As in the HIR, the drinking water standards in the Building Act are those made under the WSA.
In summary an adequate means for the collection and storage of water includes there being sufficient storage capacity, a functioning method of collecting water (e.g. roofs and guttering) which are properly maintained, storage that is free from contamination, a system for transmitting the water into and around the house, and for the treatment, such as filtration, for water that is intended for drinking.
Under both the HIR and the Building Act, water, which is intended for drinking [ my emphasis] must be free of E – coli.
There are no specific guidelines for acceptable E – coli levels in water used solely for bathing or washing dishes or clothing not intended for drinking. Decision
The issue has been raised as to whether the tenants use of the studio for business purposes was relevant to the claim. In my view, it is not. The studio includes a kitchenette with a sink and a tap. Although the studio was not intended for occupation it was reasonable for the tenant to believe that the water from that tap would be suitable for its intended use, which, for water out of a tap over a kitchen sink, is drinking.
The water from the tap was contaminated and therefore not suitable for its intended use. It also remains unfiltered and untreated.
The tenant states that bathing in and consuming the water had resulted in unwellness, near death experiences, and heightened PTSD, all of which had significantly impacted their ability to work. However, apart from a record of absences from work, and school, and a general letter from a doctor referencing possible respiratory unwellness caused by dampness, there is no medical evidence directly linking the water contamination to the occupants gastrointestinal unwellness sufficient to justify the compensation claimed.
Nonetheless, I am satisfied however that the tenant has not received what they had bargained for under the agreement and have therefore suffered a loss of amenity. I therefore award compensation of $2,600.00. Exemplary damages
Breaching the provisions in section 45 of the Act, and interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the tenant amounting to harassment, under section 38(3) of the Act, deemed unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded of up to $7,200.00.
Where a party has intentionally committed an act or omission, and that act or omission constitutes a breach of the Act, which is also an unlawful act, 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) of the Act.
In TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, the Court confirmed under section 109 of the Act that 'Intentional' means an act or omission that is committed "deliberately and with full knowledge".
The tenant states that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act and to uphold the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. According to the tenant, these obligations require a landlord to provide a respectful and culturally safe environment for Māori tenants, observing Māori cultural protocols when entering the property and interacting with the tenant, and recognising the tenant’s role as mana whenua (Māori customary authority over land).
The tenant claims that the landlord’s failure to maintain the property, along with the conduct of their agents, for whom the landlord is responsible, has been culturally inappropriate, endangered the tenant’s health, and caused significant distress and financial strain.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi can be described as a foundational document shaping the relationship between the Crown and Māori. However, Te Tiriti is not automatically part of New Zealand law and must be explicitly incorporated to have legal effect. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not incorporated into the Residential Tenancies Act, the Building Act, Healthy Homes Standards, or Housing Improvement Regulations.
Regarding the breaches that have been proved, namely the failure to maintain the property, failure to provide and maintain an adequate means for collection and storage of water suitable for drinking in the studio, the failure to provide the property in a reasonably clean condition and remove all rubbish, and the one-off incident involving the pool cleaner.
The cleaning and rubbish breach does not warrant an award of exemplary damages.
Regarding the odour and the water, I am not satisfied that the landlord has committed these acts or omissions intentionally. As stated, although the delay was unreasonable, the landlord otherwise took appropriate steps to address the leak causing the odour. I accept that the landlord genuinely believed that the water to the studio was mains supply. There is no award of exemplary damages.
The interference did not amount to harassment and exemplary damages cannot be awarded. Landlord claims Damage to pool cover.
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the pool liner and cover.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The photographs produced by the landlord show two small tears in the pool liner. The tenant states that the pool cover was on a reel but not securely fitted and pot plants had been used to hold the cover in place. During a storm, the cover had unravelled and tore. During the hearing, it was established that the damage to the pool liner was pre-existing, and the photographs had been taken by the pool cleaner soon after the commencement of the tenancy. The damage to the pool cover was identified as fair wear and tear which had also been raised with the pool cleaner. The claim is dismissed. Water rates
The landlord has produced an outstanding water rate bill for $666.93 for the period 21 May 2024 to 19 November 2024. The tenant acknowledges they have not settled the invoice.
Section 39(3) of the Act, states that tenants are responsible “for all outgoings that in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises”.
The amount claimed is awarded. Costs
There are no orders made for reimbursement of the respective filing fees. An order made to one will cancel any order made to the other. Name suppression.
Both parties seek name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Globally assessed the Tribunal finds that both parties have been substantially successful in these proceedings, and both are entitled to name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5066448 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5066448 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions