What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5088948 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address’s street must

How much money was awarded in case 5088948?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5088948?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5088948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11921424-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5088948 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address’s street must

How much money was awarded in case 5088948?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5088948?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5088948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11921424-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

27 Fern Glen Road South, St Heliers, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5088948 — Rent arrears

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address’s street must not be published.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,057.14 to [the tenant] immediately.
[The landlords] must immediately pay [the tenant] $128.98.
The claims are allowed as set out in this decision. All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The tenant] attended the hearing on her own behalf. 1
[The property manager], who managed the tenancy for the landlords, attended the hearing for the landlords.
The tenant claims that the landlords breached their maintenance and Healthy Homes Standards obligations and interfered with her reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
The landlords claim for rent and water and for costs they incurred at the end of the tenancy due to the tenant not fulfilling her end-of-tenancy obligations. Background
The tenancy began on 22 June 2023. It was a fixed-term tenancy due to run for two years. However, the tenancy ended early on 15 April 2025 by mutual agreement.
The premises has large grounds of 1,000m 2 . The house’s floor area is also large at 334m 2 . The house has five bedrooms, three bathrooms, multiple spacious living areas, a two-car garage, and an inground swimming pool. The house is probably about 50 years old and built in what realtors have described as an American Colonial style.
Being an older, wooden house, it will naturally require regular maintenance as materials such as weatherboards, roofing iron, and window frames inevitably age and deteriorate. Even though a houses age and deterioration is inevitable, landlord must comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS), which impose minimum standards for heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage, and with s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires landlords to maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair. 1 The hearing was on 29 May 2025.
At the beginning of the tenancy the landlord filled out a HHS that stated that the premises complied with the HHS. However, at that time the home did not comply with the standards for heating, ventilation, or draught stopping. The main living area had a gas fire, but it was not until the landlord had a heat pump installed in November 2024 that the heating standard was met. Similarly, one of the bathrooms’ extractor fans did not vent to the outside and that was not remedied unit November 2024 either. The front door had excessive gaps. That issue was probably addressed within the statutory grace period.
Also, at the beginning of the tenancy, several weatherboards had rotted at ground level, probably contributing to damp and cold inside. The landlord did not fix the weatherboards until summertime in February of 2024.
Against this general background, the tenant claims: oThe landlords failed to comply with the HHS standards. 2 oThe landlords knowingly made a false or misleading statement in the tenancy agreement in respect to HHS. 3 oThe landlords failed to maintain the provide and maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair. 4 oThe landlords interfered with her reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. 5
For remedy, the tenant asks for compensation and exemplary damages where appropriate.
The tenant also claimed that the rent was in excess of market rent. However, this claim could not be considered because the tenancy was for a fixed term and the tenant did not lodge her claim within three months of the commencement of the tenancy or the date of the last rent review. 6
The landlord seeks rent and water arrears, and vacated costs for cleaning, light bulb replacement, wall damage, and missing chattels.
The issues for determination therefore are: oDid the landlords breach the HHS standards? oDid the landlords knowingly make a false or misleading statement? oDid the landlords fail to maintain the premises? oDid the landlords interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. oDoes the tenant owe the landlords for cost of cleaning, repairs, and chattels? 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 45(1)(bb), Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 3 RTA, s 13A(1F)(b). 4 RTA, s 45(1)(b), Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, regs 15 and 17. 5 RTA, s 38. 6 RTA, s 25.

Did the landlord breach the HHS?

The tenant says as soon as she moved in she found the house was cold and damp but was reassured by the landlords’ statement that the house met the legal standards for HHS. She submits: 7 The initial rent was $1,600 and though I appreciated that it was an older house, my expectation was with such a high rent, any issues would be resolved quickly and promptly. I was also comforted by the issuance of the Healthy Homes Compliance Certificate which gave the impression that as per the RTA, it was an up-to-date certificate completed between tenancies. There were issues that were brought up before we physically moved into the property. Within the first week of being in the property in May 2023, I brought to the attention of the landlord the rotten weatherboards that had decayed so badly there were numerous holes. I also pointed out that blown and rotten weatherboards had been painted over with fresh paint, which would indicate that the landlord was aware of the issues. The landlord got a builder to look at the problem, but it wasn’t until February 2024 that work started on replacing the weatherboards.
Unfortunately the landlord’s statement was not accurate. Legal principles
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires that landlords comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: o 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. o All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. o All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
In this case, the tenancy began on 22 May 2023, so the landlord had to comply within 120 days of that date, which is 18 September 2023.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what 7 Tribunal on Paper submission, p 4. a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/ Discussion
The main living area was a spacious open area of about 70m 2 which includes the kitchen, dining area and two sitting areas. This area required qualifying heaters of 11 kilowatts. However, heating for the area was serviced only a gas fire which supplied only of 7.5 - 8 kilowatts heating capacity.
The landlords say they supplies plug-in heaters that enabled the tenant to heat the living area at the required capacity. However, they were not fixed heaters so were not qualifying heaters.
The landlords installed a heat pump on about 30 October 2024, which met the standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
One of the premises’ three bathrooms did not vent air to the outside. The landlords did not install a qualifying fan until about 3 November 2024.
At the beginning of the tenancy, the front door had an excessive gap, but it is likely that the gap was remedied before the compliance date. The tenant referred to other places that had draught such as her son’s bedroom. However, I do not find it proven on the balance of probabilities that there were other areas that had excessive gaps beyond the statutory compliance date.
It follows, I find the tenant has proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlords breached the HHS for heating and ventilation.
The tenant claims the landlord breached the standards for water ingress and drainage but that claim falls more relevantly into the tenant’s failure to maintain claim and will be addressed there. Remedies
Breaching of the standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 8 Exemplary damages are punitive damages that are designed to punish transgressors and deter would-be transgressors. 8 RTA, s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A.
The landlords have committed an unlawful act.
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. 9
I consider the landlords knew that the premises’ heating did not comply with the HHS. The property manager is an experienced property manager that manages many properties. It must have known landlords’ heating standard obligation. The non- compliant bathroom ventilation was not obvious from observation. I do not find the landlords intentionally breached that obligation.
The landlord’s intent was not malicious but involved a wilful omission. The effect of the unlawful act was to make the house less comfortable than it would otherwise have been. It is in the interests of the tenant and the public interest favours an award of exemplary damages.
I consider an order for $1,000.00 exemplary damages is called for. The landlords should learn from this order not to breach the HHS again.
I also make an order for damages for loss of amenity for the breaches. The house was colder, damper, and more prone to mould than it should have been. The relevant period is 18 September 2023 to about 3 November 2024. I calculate a weekly amount of $82.50 as appropriate to compensate the tenant for her loss of amenity.
The total amount is $4,867.50.

Did the landlord knowingly make a misleading statement?

The landlords’ HHS statement represents that the premises complied with the heat standard when it did not comply.
The property manager said she was very unwell when she signed the HHS statement, so was not thinking clearly.
However, that is not an excuse for making a misleading statement.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlords knowingly misrepresented the premises as complying with the HHS.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $900.00. 10
Having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest, I consider it is just to order $450.00 for exemplary damages. 9 RTA, s 109(3). 10 RTA, s 13A(F) and Schedule 1A.

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

The tenant complains that the landlords failed to maintain the premises in many ways, including failing to address: oRotting weatherboards oDeteriorating window frames oBlocked gutters leading to a damp wall oOvergrown trees oMissing deck privacy screen slats oFaulty wiring oBlocked wood burner flue oDeteriorating pool tiling Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 11 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 12 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a 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...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 13 However, Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 14 11 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 12 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... Discussion
The tenant first raised concerns with the landlord about the rotting weather boards from the beginning of the tenancy.
Several weatherboards had rotted at ground level, contributing to damp and cold conditions in the living areas. The landlord did not fix the weatherboards until summertime in February of 2024.
The landlords assessed the weatherboards as an issue that could be scheduled for repair in summertime. That February they not only replaced the boards but also installed strip drains underneath the new weatherboards to ensure they did not rot again.
The tenant provided photographs showing that some of the bedroom window frames had become degraded with paint falling away, and detritus and mould penetrating into the wood.
This was another delayed maintenance matter.
The landlords did not finally remedy these until 16 December 2024.
The tenant reported that a wall in the dining/living area was damp to the touch on 15 January 2024. She believes the leak was cause by the guttering being blocked by leaves. That issue was not fixed on about 30 April 2024 by a builder who was on site doing other repairs.
The tenant reported that the fuse for the laundry/kitchen/garage area was regularly tripping with ordering use. She reported the issue on 16 August 2024. The landlord’s electrician did not isolate and repair the issue until early November 2024.
The tenant complains that the landlord took too long to replace wooden privacy slats on the decks within a reasonable time. The tenant also experienced problems with the wood burner. She reported that smoke was pouring into the house on 29 April 2024. A tradesperson came on 10 June, but they did not fix the issue. It was not until about 3 November 2024 that the wood burner’s cowl was replaced as required
The tenant claims the landlord failed to maintain the poolside tiles and the trees. However, I am not persuaded that the landlords did not maintain the tiles and the trees to an appropriate standard within reasonable timeframes. 13 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 14 See n 2.
I am satisfied, however, that the landlords did not maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair in respect to the weatherboards, window frames, damp wall, wiring, log burner, and privacy screen slats. Remedies
The weatherboards had rotted through at ground level. It is likely damp and cold air could enter into the wall cavity and affect the interior of the house. Several internal bedroom window frames were suffering from flacking paint and surface rot. That would have made the bedrooms damper and more prone to mould than they ought to have been.
For the weatherboards, window frames and deferred general maintenance, I order $50.00 per week from the beginning of the tenancy until 28 February 2024 when the weatherboards were fixed.
I order $20.00 per week for the window frames for 29 February 2024 until 16 December 2024 because they were not fixed until after the 28 February date.
A wall in the living room was damp to the touch for several months probably due to fallen leaves blocking the guttering. For the wall dampness, I order $100.00 per week for loss of amenity. The total amount is $1,528.57.
For the privacy slats and wood burner, I order a fixed amount of $300.00.
The landlords deferred maintenance on the weatherboards and windows because they did not assess the maintenance as being required urgently. They did eventually carry out the necessary maintenance in summer.
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. 15
I do not minimise the effect of the landlords’ failures to maintain the premises. However, having regard to that, the landlords’ intent, the interests of the tenant and the public interest, I am not satisfied that it would be just to order exemplary damages. The landlords’ assessment that the maintenance could be deferred was understandable even if the tenant did suffer the adverse consequences that the Tribunal has compensated for. The standards for maintenance must be realistic and should not be set at a counsel of perfection standard.
Therefore, I do not consider it is appropriate to order exemplary damages in the circumstances of this case. 15 RTA, s 109(3). Did the landlords interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy?
The tenants claims that her enjoyment of the premises was reduced by the landlords’ contractors being at the premises for six weeks during which time, one contractor’s behaviour in particular, left much to be desired.
Also the tenant says, the property manager disclosed in an email that contractors were copied into that she was in rent arrears. Legal principles
Landlords must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 16
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. 17
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". 18 Discussion
It is usual practice for landlords to compensate tenants for the inconvenience of repair or general maintenance works having to be done during the term of the tenancy. That is because often the work can interfere with the tenant’s enjoyment of the tenancy.
I find it proven that the work done at the premises interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
I was minded to ordering the landlords to pay the tenant $250.00 in nominal damages for sending the email that released the tenant’s personal information without consent. However, on reflection I consider that what appears to be a clear breach of the Privacy Act 2010 does not come within s 38 because the disclosure was not an interference with the tenant’s “use of the premises”.
The interference with privacy and comfort in this case was well below the threshold for harassment. Therefore, exemplary damages are unavailable. Remedy
Compensation for loss of amenity is set at $75.00 per week for the period of 23 October to 6 December 2024. The total amount ordered is $482.14. 16 RTA, s 38(2). 17 RTA, s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 18 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

Does the tenant owe the landlords for cost of cleaning, repairs, and chattels?

Rent and water arrears

The tenant does not contest the landlords’ claims for rent and water.
The Tribunal allows landlords’ claims as set out in the table above. Cleaning, lightbulb replacement
The landlords seek reimbursement for its costs for cleaning the premises after the tenancy ended of $402.50 and for the cost of replacing lightbulbs of $222.67.
At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 19 They must also replace standard lightbulbs.
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness does not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 20
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
I have reviewed the photographs of the premises prior to the tenancy beginning and after it ended. I am satisfied the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean in some fairly minor respects that it is not necessary to detail here.
I order $201.25 for the uncleanliness, which is 50 percent of the amount claimed. I assess that as being sufficient to remedy the deficit from the reasonable standard of cleanliness.
The landlords’ claim for replacing lightbulbs is proven. All of the lightbulbs were in working order at the beginning of the tenancy. Seven lightbulbs were not working at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is liable for the cost of replacement. 19 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e)(iii). 20 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12. Chattels
Tenants are liable for chattels missing at the end of the tenancy. 21
Two fire extinguishers and a fire screen were missing at the end of the tenancy.
It has not been proven that the fire extinguishers had any value because it is not clear what their use-by date was.
I order $80.00 for the missing fire screen. That amount accounts for likely to depreciation. Wall damage
The tenant made some holes in the walls to put up pictures and the like.
The landlord sought an order for $2,300.00 for repair.
The walls were already damaged and have not been repainted for at least five years.
I had been minded to making no order for repair of the damage. However, on reflection an order of $250.00 is warranted because the tenant did cause some minor damage to the walls, albeit the walls were overdue for minor repair and repainting. Non-publication
The parties seek orders for non-publication.
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 parties have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is required in the public interest or justified by the parties’ conduct.
It follows, the Tribunal must order non-publication of the parties names and identifying particulars, which in this case include the premises street address. 21 RTA, s 40

Tenancy Tribunal case 5088948 — Rent arrears at 27 Fern Glen Road South, St Heliers, Auckland 1071

Tenancy Tribunal case 5088948 — Rent arrears at 27 Fern Glen Road South, St Heliers, Auckland 1071

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the HHS?

Did the landlord knowingly make a misleading statement?

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

Does the tenant owe the landlords for cost of cleaning, repairs, and chattels?

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the HHS?

Did the landlord knowingly make a misleading statement?

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

Does the tenant owe the landlords for cost of cleaning, repairs, and chattels?