What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5143509 about?

The tribunal order states: modifies the original Order published on 29 May 2025, and corrects

How much money was awarded in case 5143509?

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 5143509?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11938046-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5143509 about?

The tribunal order states: modifies the original Order published on 29 May 2025, and corrects

How much money was awarded in case 5143509?

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 5143509?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11938046-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5143509 — Rent arrears

Order

modifies the original Order published on 29 May 2025, and corrects the calculations contained within that Order.

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the tenants’ and the landlord’s names and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenants] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends at midnight on Friday 21 March 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended a preliminary video hearing on 17 March 2025 and at today’s 15 May 2025 hearing of parties’ substantive claims.

PARTIES SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS

The tenants’ claims, to be heard under application number 5143509 are: a. Are there grounds for the Tribunal to order a reduction of the 5-year fixed term tenancy; b. Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; c. Did the premise comply with the healthy homes standards by the statutorily required date, specifically the moisture ingress and drainage standard; d. Did the premise comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises, including but not limited to the Housing Regulations 1947; and e. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment.
The landlord’s claims to be heard under application number 55134868 are: a. Rent arrears; b. Compensation for break lease fees; 5143590, 51348683 c. Exemplary damages for failure to allow reasonable entry to tradespeople for scheduled maintenance; d. Exemplary damages for interference with the property, specifically the functionality of the water valve.
I note that the landlord has provided written evidence of damages to the premises that he claims the tenants intentionally or carelessly did during the tenancy, but these are not claims the Tribunal can hear and determine as they were not part of the landlord’s claims in its original application and were not raised at the preliminary 17 March 2025 hearing where the substantive issues to be heard were discussed, agreed and recorded in the interim order published on 19 March 2025. The first time they were raised with the Tribunal was mid-way through the 15 May 2025 hearing. The tenants did not agree to the late admission of these claims, so they were dismissed.
Both parties are seeking name suppression, reimbursement of their filing fees and a refund of the bond. TENANCY TRIBUNAL’S STATUTORY BAR ON JURISDICTION
Section 77(1) of the RTA states that “The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time”.
Section 77(5) of the RTA places limits on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, stating that the “Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to require any party to pay any sum, or to do any work to a value, or otherwise to incur any expenditure, in excess of $100,000”.
At the 17 March 2025 case management conference, I confirmed that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and resolve disputes related to residential tenancies, and to make orders up to a maximum of $100,000.00 for each application it hears.
The landlord indicated that its claims may be for more than $100,000.00 by the time its application is heard on 15 May 2025, due to the rent arrears accruing at $6,500.00 per week.
On 17 March 2025, it was uncertain whether the tenants’ claims would result in an equitable offset that may bring any remedies awarded to the landlord below the $100,000.00 statutory limit.
In the 18 March 2025 Consent Order and Directions Minute, I informed the landlord: 5143590, 51348684 a. It must, by 4pm on Friday 11 April 2025, choose between having its claim heard by the Tribunal on 15 May 2025 or to withdraw its application and make its application directly to the District Court; and b. This choice of forum for the hearing of its claims must be conveyed to the Tribunal in writing by email to aucklandmetrotenancy@justice.govt.nz; and c. If landlord choses to have its claims heard by the District Court, the Tribunal will still hear the tenants claims on 15 May 2025, as they are well below the statutory remedy limit.
The landlord did not elect to have the District Court hear its claims. Therefore, at today’s hearing I have heard both the tenant and the landlord’s claims.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, we do not need to be completely certain, but we need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, we must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). We must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. 5143590, 51348685

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b),(bb) ad (c) 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 provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a time frame 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.
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. 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]. 5143590, 51348686 Failure to maintain
The tenants say the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a time frame that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The tenancy agreement is based on the Tenancy Services template. However, the following sections of the Agreement are incomplete: a. There is no detailed information on the premise’s current level of compliance with the healthy homes’ standards; b. The property inspection report checklist is not completed or signed by both partes; c. There is no insurance information in the Agreement; and d. There is no smoke alarm information in the Agreement.
The tenants say that the absence of this information about current state of the premise in the Agreement meant they were unaware at the commencement of the tenancy how many issues there were with the property that meant it was not compliant with the landlord’s obligations under s45 of the RTA, ensuring the premise was provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair, being one of those obligations.
The tenants submit that they raised numerous repair and maintenance issues and concerns with the property manager by text messages and telephone calls from the beginning of October 2024, after having lived in the premise for less than a month.
The property manager claims he undertook an entry inspection report and the house appeared to be in good working order. ”I have not been provided with a copy of that initial inspection report. This report is however referred to in a text message from the property manager to the tenant, dated 2 October 2024. This text message suggests the tenants had already raised some repair and maintenance issues and that the property manager was going to “add the leaking fountain, mould on the roof etc to the report”. This text message conflicts with the property manager’s evidence during the hearing that the premise was in good working order. When asked about this discrepancy in his evidence, the property manager stated that “you don’t see the types of issues the tenants raised until you are living in a premise”.
The property manager confirmed the tenants had raised most of the repair and maintenance issues with him prior to him instructing one of his employees to undertake the Alba inspection, but not all of them. He was not specific about which issues had not been raised with him prior to the Alba inspection report being conducted. However, the property manager and the male tenant confirmed it was the numerous issues and concerns raised by the tenants that led to the December 2024 Alba inspection and report. 5143590, 51348687
The Alba report was completed by an employee of the property management company around 18 or 19 December 2024. The partes confirmed the inspection was comprehensive, took around 3 hours, and the male tenant accompanied the Alba employee during the inspection.
The Alba report lists all the repair and maintenance issues the Alba employee stated required addressing, which are as follows: a. POOL AREA: i. Balustrade base plate is disconnected from tile/concrete. The tile has lifted from the concrete pad. ii. Balustrade rail is falling off. iii. The pool water had black material in it from duck faeces. This is happening every day. The pool cover should be used to prevent ducks from entering the water, but this can have an effect on the chlorine level in the pool. b. EXTERNAL DECKS: i. Many of the boards on the ground floor decks are cupping and/or have loose and protruding screws as the timber has not been regularly maintained. ii. Many of the boards on the bedroom level floor decks are cupping and/or have loose and protruding screws as the timber has not been regularly maintained. There is also a raised part of the deck outside the master bedroom which has created a step that is a trip hazard and its tips when stood on. iii. There are two glass wall panel skylights which are set lower than the deck level. These glass panels are also a trip and fall hazard. c. EXTERNAL SPOUTING: i. The copper spouting has parts where the Butanol flashing has lifted off and it leaks. ii. There is a leak in the spouting/downpipe outside the dining room. d. EXTERNAL FRENCH AND SLIDING DOORS: i. Many of these doors are difficult to open and close. (kitchen near bench, hallway opposite wine room, second small bedroom) with latches not lining up and doors hitting the door sills. ii. There is one set of doors that leaks and floods the carpet area in the Master Bedroom area where it exits out to the first-floor fireplace deck area. 5143590, 51348688 iii. Many of the foam weather strips have peeled off or are in the process of peeling/falling off. iv. French door sills on the ground floor level have front parts that are disconnecting from the rest of the sill, causing cracking and water leaks. v. Wind movement of all the French doors causes unnecessary vibration noise throughout the house. e. WINDOWS: i. Some windows have net screens to keep mosquitos out, many others do not have screens. There is a mosquito problem in this house. f. EXTERNAL CLADDING: i. There are bird faeces on the first-floor deck area from birds nesting. ii. The overall external appearance of the home is dirty and needs maintenance work performed on it (antimould and house wash). iii. The Schist pillars and cladding has mould growing in the grouted mortar joints. g. EXTERNAL PERGOLAS: i. The pergola timber is mouldy and needs maintenance work to wash and seal the timber. h. ROOF AREA: i. The ridge tiles appear to have been regrouted. ii. Butanol has been replaced in parts of the roof. iii. The roof tiles appear to be mouldy and unmaintained. Many tiles have lichen growing on them. iv. Many of the metal flashings have an overall external appearance of being dirty and need maintenance work performed on them (antimould and house wash). i. EXTERNAL COBWEBS: i. There are many cobwebs all around the house windows, doors and external garden areas. This requires clearing off and anti-spider spray applied. (e.g. Wet and Forget Miss Muppet’s Revenge spray. j. EXTERNAL GROUND DRAINAGE: i. There is stormwater ponding that occurs occasionally outside the windows at the end of the pool table room. The ground is sloping towards the house and ground drainage is not sufficient to remove water from this area. 5143590, 51348689 k. GARAGE: i. Garage door maintenance is required on all garage doors. One garage door has a chain that has come off and is needing repair. l. OTHER EXTERNAL DOORS: i. The large door opening to the space with the diesel tank in it has a broken ground latch. m. DIESEL TANK: i. The external paint surface on the diesel tank is degraded and rust is coming through. Diesel is known to be adversely affected by rust contamination. n. EXTERNAL LIGHTS: i. The garden lights to the right of the front door are not working. o. INTERNAL LIGHTS: i. There are downlights that are not working in the kitchen, pantry, large room above garage, upstairs bathroom, pool table room. ii. The lights in the movie room cupboard are not working. iii. I replaced bulbs in the outside courtyard area and a kitchen pendant. p. MOVIE ROOM: i. This room has good equipment in it, but unfortunately it is not set up for optimum performance. ii. The subwoofer does not work. iii. The KEF speakers do not work with the TV. iv. The Panasonic DVD does not play through the Blu Ray channel of the Marantz amplifier. v. There are wall recessed stations throughout the house (master bedroom, wine room and kitchen) that appear to be part of a in house music system, but the wires are exposed, and nothing is working. q. INTERNET: i. The Wi-Fi signal is weak within the whole house. There only appears to be reasonable signal strength next to the modem. ii. The fibre connection needs to be checked and the Wi-Fi system needs to be optimized. r. WALL TOUCH CONTROL PANELS: i. One of the touch control panels in the master bedroom is flickering and unresponsive. 5143590, 513486810 s. HOT WATER: i. The hot water takes a very long time to come through the pipework (i.e. to the kitchen and showers it takes about 2 minutes). ii. The hot water cylinder is in the cupboard with the sliding doors in the large room above the garage and is located too far away from the essential services required in the main house in areas such as bathrooms and the kitchen. t. WATER FILTRATION: i. The kitchen under bench carbon filter does not have an installation date on it. These filters should be changed regularly (12 to 24 months). ii. The quality of the bore water in the taps has been reported to be cloudy and dirty in appearance. u. PLUMBING AND DRAINS: i. There is an issue with water in the drains under the floor between the laundry and bathroom behind the kitchen to have a problem with backing up to the toilet in that bathroom. This could be possibly caused by a partial blockage which needs to be checked and cleared. v. PESTS: i. Ants are a constant problem in this house and proper ant control needs to be performed to minimize the issues. w. INTERNAL TEMPERATURE: i. This house has heated fireplaces throughout, as if it was built for a cold climate. Unfortunately, there is no provision of any cooling in the whole place. The master bedroom and annex room can get very hot and uncomfortable to be in. A heat pump with cooling provision should be provided to alleviate this problem. x. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: i. This house and grounds have the potential to be something good, but the way the house is presenting at the moment is the result of inadequate attention to detail, bad building practices and inadequate regular maintenance. Years of neglect have brought about a situation where many repair and maintenance tasks are now required. ii. Parts of the decking areas are unsafe and unusable. iii. Unfortunately, this has resulted in a very unsatisfactory living experience for the house occupants. 5143590, 513486811
The owner stated the first time he was made aware of these issues was 29 December 2024. He says that when the house was rented to the tenants there was nothing wrong with the house and he considers many of the issues raised in the Alba report to be over exaggerated, non-urgent and he says he got the more significant issues addressed as soon as possible, but was constrained by: a. The tenants being reluctant to let the contractors into the house to undertake repairs; b. Finding it hard to get tradespeople to undertake the work under urgency due to most trades people not returning to work after the Christmas break until mid-January 2025; and c. Trying to oversee and manage the list of repair and maintenance issues from Hong Kong, where he resides with his family and finding communications with the tenants and the property manager challenging at times.
The property manager stated: a. The tenants had raised a number of repair and maintenance issues after the first few weeks of their tenancy and reiterated some additional issues in a text message dated 2 October 2024; b. He wanted to get an inspection report undertaken by one of his maintenance employees before drafting a plan to address all the tenants’ issues so he could discuss and agree the plan with the owner before going back to the tenants; and c. There had been a delay in getting the report undertaken as the male tenant had travelled to China sometime in November 2024.
A text message dated 6 December 2024 from the property manager to the tenant states “Thanks for reiterating the maintenance issues. I understand things are getting out of hand and [Landlord name suppressed] is not wanting to pay for anything. Need to cha over the pone when you have 5 minutes later today. I’s like to send Geoff (our maintenance guy and also my father in law) over to do this. He’s the nicest guy and will make a long list of everything that needs addressing and also make note of all the things [Landlord name suppressed] is not addressing”.
The parties confirmed the repair and maintenance issues set out in the Alba report were addressed as follows:

POOL AREA

The tenants say none of the pool issues in the Alba report have been addressed by the landlord.
The landlord says these issues were all minor , did not need urgent attention, and the report embellishes these issues making them sound worse than they are in reality. Further, the owner says his building contractor has assessed the pool 5143590, 513486812 balustrades and tiles and confirmed these are minor issues that did not require urgent repair. I note that this contractor is working for the owner on other remediation and renovation works and he did not provide any written statement or report on these issues that confirms these issues were minor and non-urgent and that the pool was always in a reasonable state of repair during the tenancy. In addition, no photographs were produced by the landlord that proved the pool was in a reasonable state of repair at the start of the tenancy and at the time of the Alba report.
The tenants say where the base plate goes into the tile along the back edge there are several tiles that have broken and if you push the balustrade fence it moves. Further, all the bolts were loose and the Alba employee that did the inspection told the male tenant that this was dangerous. The male tenant produced some photographic evidence on his mobile phone during the hearing that supported what is recorded in the Alba report.
The male employee gave evidence that he was also told by the pool maintenance person that the pool had to breath in the summer, due to solar panels, and could not be covered as a solution to the duck faeces problem. In addition, the tenants say they found the cover hard to pull the on and off each day during the winter months.
On the evidence provided, I am satisfied that more likely than not that the balustrades did require repairs and that the landlord intentionally did not have these repairs undertaken in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances. The landlord could have had an independent assessment report carried out by his building contractor that proved what of these repairs in the Alba report required attention and what did not and why. No such assessment report was provided to the Tribunal. I am also satisfied that the tenants raised these issues with the landlord on 2 October 2024, again on 6 December 2024 and on 19 December 2024, when an Alba employee also confirmed these issues required repairs and/or maintenance and the landlord intentionally had failed to undertake the necessary repairs and/or maintenance work by the end of the tenancy, on 18 April 2025.
I find that the tenants should receive compensation of $50.00 per week for the loss of amenity of the pool endured by the tenants for the 24 weeks and 2 days period from 2 October 2024 to 21 March 2025, being a compensatory sum of $1,214.29.
I find that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to ensure the pool water was maintained to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances by paying for the pool to be regularly valeted and that the ducks landing in the pool on a large rural property was something outside of the landlord’s control. Therefore, I dismiss the tenants claims for compensation for the condition of the pool water. 5143590, 513486813 EXTERNAL DECKS:
The tenants say the deck boards were rotten and unsafe and were never fixed during the tenancy. Additionally, the downpipe flowed straight on to the west facing side of the house on to the top deck making them slippery and dangerous.
The owner confirmed the decks had not been repaired and stated he had arranged to get a quote the week after the hearing to fix the rotten boards on the upper and lower decks and to get the decks cleaned. The owner claims there is no safety hazard and so he has not addressed this issue with urgency. Further, he says the decks are around 15 years old, built in 2010, and that when he and his family moved out of the premise in July 2024, there were no rotten boards, cupping or protruding and that he has small children that he would not let run around on the deck if there were the types of hazards alluded to by the tenant and the December 2024 Alba report.
The property manager confirmed he got a quote to replace the decks from Jamie Naylor (the owners building contractor) who confirmed the decks did not need to be replaced, unless the owner wanted consistency in the look of the deck boards, as the rotten deck boards could be fixed. The owner and the property manager confirmed about a quarter of the deck boards need to be replaced.
The owner also stated that in terms of the cupping situation, another contractor had confirmed to him recently the cupping had lifted some of the decking nails overtime and that the deck would look as good as new if the cupping was sanded down, the protruding nails hammered back in, and the deck boards were stained/painted.
The tenant confirmed he never asked for the decks to be replaced, he stated he just wanted the deck related issues, identified in the December 2024 Alba report, fixed. He says the protruding nails and rotten boards were a hazard that should have been addressed promptly and were not.
The owner says Jamie Naylor (the owner’s building contractor) can attest to there not being any issues with the deck or the two glass wall panel skylights and that neither of these areas of the premise were unsafe. This evidence is contrary to the evidence given by the property manager, the evidence in the Alba report and the evidence given by the landlord that quarter of the deck boards were rotten and in need of replacement and that some of the cupped areas had resulted in protruding nails that needed to be hammered back in.
On the evidence provided, I find that is more likely than not that a quarter of the decking boards were rotten and needed replacing and that there were areas where the decking had cupped that led to protruding nails. I also find on balance that the decks near the dining room where the spouting was leaking had become green and in need of a clean. I am satisfied that the tenants raised these issues with the landlord on 2 October 2024, and 6 December 2024 and that an Alba employee confirmed to it again on 19 December 2024 these issues required 5143590, 513486814 repairs and/or maintenance, and the landlord intentionally had failed to undertake the necessary repairs and/or maintenance work by the end of the tenancy on 18 April 2025.
The landlord could have had an independent assessment report carried out by Jamie Naylor (his building contractor) that proved what, if any, of these repairs in the Alba report required attention and what did not and why. No such assessment report was provided to the Tribunal. I therefore prefer the evidence contained in the December 2024 Alba report, which was drafted by an independent Alba employee that had nothing to gain or lose by reporting what he found to his employer, and the second building contractor who quoted for repairs to the decks and cleaning, as opposed to one building contractor engaged by the owner to undertake significant repair and renovation works at a profit who stated there was nothing at all wrong with the decks.
I find that the tenants should receive compensation of $50.00 per week for the loss of amenity of the deck endured by the tenants for the 24 weeks and 2 days period from 2 October 2024 to 21 March 2025, being a compensatory sum of $1,214.29. EXTERNAL SPOUTING:
The landlord confirmed the copper spouting has parts where the Butanol flashing has lifted off and it leaks and that there is a leak in the spouting/downpipe outside the dining room.
The owner confirmed: a. He has seen this leak and flashing issue; b. Both issues had not been addressed as at the date of the hearing; and c. He has engaged Jamie Naylor to undertake these repairs.
I am satisfied that the tenants raised these external spouting issues with the landlord on 2 October 2024 and 6 December 2024 and that an Alba employee also confirmed to it on 19 December 2024 that these issues required repairs and/or maintenance, and the landlord intentionally had failed to undertake the necessary repairs and/or maintenance work by the end of the tenancy on 18 April 2025.
I find that the tenants should receive compensation of $50.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress, and inconvenience they suffered for 26 weeks and 2 days, from 2 October 2024 to 21 March 2025, being a compensatory sum of $1,214.29. EXTERNAL FRENCH AND SLIDING DOORS:
The tenants say that none of these French and sliding door issues were fixed during the tenancy.
The property manager confirmed that these issues were never addressed, stated that the communication between he and the tenants could have been better and 5143590, 513486815 that if the communications had been better, he may have been able to get these issues addressed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I am satisfied that the tenants raised the external French and sliding door issues with the landlord on 2 October 2024 and 6 December 2024 and that an Alba employee confirmed to it again on 19 December 2024 that these issues required repairs and/or maintenance and the landlord intentionally had failed to undertake the necessary repairs and/or maintenance work by the end of the tenancy on 18 April 2025.
I find that the tenants should receive compensation of $30.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience caused for the 26 weeks and 2 days period from 2 October 2024 to 21 March 2025, being a compensatory sum of $788.57. MOSQUITO NETS ON WINDOWS:
The property manager stated that he did not address the mosquito net issues as he did not see this as a major issue. He pointed out that the Alba report captured what was going on in the property from the tenant’s perspective and that his employee did not find any mosquito issues during the inspection. Further, the property manager submitted that the house is surrounded by bush and water and that such an environment could attract mosquitos and the like. He refuted that the mosquito nets in the top room were broken, but the male tenant produced some photographs that showed one facing west in the top room was pulling away from the side and stated these nets were also hard to pull up and down due to being worn.
The tenant also requested mosquito nets on all windows ,when only a few of them had these nets at the start of the tenancy. He says he requested this because there is a significant mosquito problem in this house.
I find that the tenant has proven at least one mosquito net was broken and in need of repair and it was intentionally never repaired from when the landlord has it confirmed by its employee to 19 December 2024 to 18 April 2025.
I do not accept that the landlord was responsible for installing mosquito nets on all windows and doors in this large premise. Given there was no air conditioning in the master bedroom, so the tenants had to keep the windows open at night to try to reduce the heat, I find that the landlord did not repair this broken mosquito net in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I find that the tenants should receive compensation of $30.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience caused by the broken/worn mosquito screen in the master bedroom for the 26 weeks and 2 days period from 2 October 2024 to 21 March 2025, being a compensatory sum of $788.57 5143590, 513486816

EXTERNAL CLADDING AND PERGOLA

The tenant produced photographs that shows there were bird faeces on the first- floor deck area from birds nesting and that the overall external appearance of the home was dirty and in need of a house wash.
The landlord confirmed that this is a rural property and there are lots of birds present throughout the property.
I do not accept that the tenants’ photographs prove the Schist pillars, house cladding and pergola had some mould growing, but accept that the house was dirty and in need of a chemical wash.
I find oral witness evidence given by the house washing contactor inconsistent with the information on his company’s invoice. The oral evidence of the contractor was the house and pergola were not in need of mould treatment, but the house did require a house wash (mostly for cosmetic purposes to remove a build up of dirt and bird excrement). The invoice commentary states that the house was heavily mouldy and dirty. However, the invoice shows that the contractor never used any mould treatment. I concluded from this that the commentary is incorrect and that the oral evidence matches the listed products used by the contractor.
The landlord confirmed that the house and pergola were water blasted on 20 January 2025. I am satisfied that this house washing was undertaken in a reasonable timeframe after the 19 December 2024 report, especially given the owner was not aware of the issue until 29 December 2024 and he found it difficult to engage a house wash contractor earlier than 20 January 2025 due to closedowns over Christmas and New Year. I also find that the evidence proves that it is more likely than not that the house and pergola were dirty but that there were no health and safety risks to the tenants.
I dismiss this tenant claim for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. ROOF AREA:
The tenants say the terracotta roof tiles were not water blasted during the tenancy.
The property manager confirmed that he and the tenant looked at getting a drone to look at whether the roof tiles required cleaning.
The tenants claim the tiles were black with mould and unmaintained. The tenants also claimed that many of the roof tiles had lichen growing on them and many of the metal flashings had an overall external appearance of being dirty and in need maintenance work performed on them, such as antimould treatment and chemical washing. 5143590, 513486817
The landlord produced an aerial photograph from google earth, taken not less than 2 months before the hearing date. This photograph showed the terracotta tiles may have been a bit dirty but were not black with mould.
The tenants did not produce any photographic evidence that proved the tiles were posing a health and safety risk to them or that the rent they were paying included clean roof tiles.
The house being required to be in a reasonable state of repair during the tenancy does not include pristine, lichen and dirt-free roof tiles.
I dismiss this tenant maintenance claim for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. EXTERNAL COBWEBS:
The landlord proved the cobwebs all around the house windows, doors and external garden areas were chemically treated with anti-spider and washed away on 20 January 2025 by the house washing contractor.
I am satisfied that this maintenance work was carried out in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I dismiss this tenant maintenance claim for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. EXTERNAL GROUND DRAINAGE:
The tenants showed photographs that prove there is some stormwater ponding that the tenants say occurred occasionally outside the windows at the end of the pool table room. The tenants say this is where the ground is sloping towards the house and the ground drainage is not sufficient to remove water from this area.
The 16 May 2024 healthy homes report shows that the third-party assessor did not consider there to be any daring issues with the property. In addition, the owner gave evidence that his building contractor, Jamie Naylor, had confirmed to him that there were no drainage issues in this area of the premise that require repairs.
The tenants reiterated that this photograph shows there is a large pool of water outside that area of the building and that he was concerned that, when he had sent the photograph to the property manager, the property manager had blamed the tenants for overfilling the fountain.
I dismiss this tenant maintenance claim for lack of sufficient evidence to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that there was a drainage issue that was not addressed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. GARAGE:
The tenants’ and the Alba report state maintenance was required on all garage doors and that one garage door has a chain that has come off, which the tenants 5143590, 513486818 confirmed was still in urgent need of repair when the tenants moved out on 28 February 2025.
The landlord confirmed there was one garage door that had a chain that had come off needed repair. It confirmed the repair had been undertaken the week before the 15 May 2025 hearing. It stated that all the other garage doors were well maintained and not in need of any urgent repairs or maintenance.
I am satisfied that the tenants raised the garage door issues with the landlord on 2 October 2024 and on 6 December 2024 and that an Alba employee confirmed to it again on 19 December 2024 that the broken chain issue required repairs and/or maintenance and the landlord intentionally had failed to undertake the necessary repair and/or maintenance work by the end of the tenancy on 18 April 2025.
I find that the tenants should receive compensation of $15.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience caused by the broken garage door chain for the 26 weeks and 2-day period from 2 October 2024 to 21 March 2025 2025, being a compensatory sum of $394.29. DIESEL TANK AND DOOR:
The Alba report and the tenants confirmed the external paint surface on the diesel tank is degraded, and rust was coming through, and diesel is known to be adversely affected by rust contamination. The tenants also confirmed the large door opening to the space with the diesel tank in it has a broken ground latch and that these issues existed throughout the entire tenancy and were never addressed.
The property manager confirmed he was not aware of this issue until the Alba report, that the latch needed to be matched to the rest of the door, so has taken time to address but that these issues had not been addressed by the time the tenants moved out on 28 February 2025.
The owner stated that Jamie Naylor would attest to the fact the diesel tank is fine as he had investigated this in January 2025 and stated the diesel was not being affected by the surface level rust and worn paint complained of by the tenants.
I am satisfied that the tenants raised the broken ground latch issue with the landlord on 19 December 2024 and that an Alba employee confirmed this issue to it that day and that the issue required repairs and/or maintenance. I am also satisfied that the landlord had the issue investigated and the latch ordered but there was a delay in the latch being able to be sourced and installed that was outside of the landlord’s control. Therefore, I dismiss this tenant maintenance claim for lack of sufficient evidence to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that this issue was not addressed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. 5143590, 513486819 EXTERNAL LIGHTS:
The partes agreed the garden lights to the right of the front door were not working for the duration of the tenancy and were fixed about a month before the 15 May 2025 hearing. The landlord did not provide a reasonable explanation as to why these lights were not fixed, so I find it intentionally failed to make these repairs in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I find that the tenants should receive compensation of $10.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience caused by these garden lights not working for the 26 weeks and 2-day period from 2 October 2024 to 21 March 2025, being a compensatory sum of $262.86. INTERNAL LIGHTS:
The parties confirmed the downlights in the kitchen, pantry, large room above garage, upstairs bathroom and pool table room were not working at the start of the tenancy as well as the lights in the movie room cupboard.
The landlord confirmed these lights were all fixed a month before the 15 May 2025 hearing. The landlord did not provide a reasonable explanation as to why these lights were not fixed, so I find it intentionally failed to make these repairs in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I find that the tenants should receive compensation of $15.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience caused by these lights not working for the 26 weeks and 2-day period from 2 October 2024 to 21 March 2025, being a compensatory sum of $394.29 MOVIE ROOM:
The tenants and the Alba report state this room has good equipment in it, but y it was not set up for optimum performance, the subwoofer did not work, the KEF speakers did not work with the TV and the Panasonic DVD did not play through the Blu Ray channel of the Marantz amplifier. Further, the wall recessed stations throughout the house (master bedroom, wine room and kitchen) had exposed wires are exposed and nothing was working.
The landlord confirmed these issues were not investigated during the tenancy and were all investigated and fixed a month before the 15 May 2025 hearing. The only issue recorded on the contractor’s invoice was that there were some issues with the amplifier connections, but the rest of the system was in a reasonable state of repair.
I find that the tenants should receive compensation of $15.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience caused by the movie room not being in full working order, and the delay in having these issues investigated and remedied for the 26 weeks and 2-day period from 2 October 2024 to 21 March 2025, being a compensatory sum of $394.29. 5143590, 513486820 INTERNET:
The Alba report and the tenants say the Wi-Fi signal was weak within the whole house and the only place that there was reasonable signal strength was next to the modem. The tenants say they asked for the fibre connection to be checked and ways for the Wi-Fi system to be optimized to be investigated.
The landlord says the tenants chose to use their own router during the tenancy and that the owner had used an Orbie router and two satellites when he had lived there, prior to the tenancy commencing. He says that a month before the 15 May 2025 hearing, he had the Wi-Fi system checked out and it all worked fine.
I am satisfied that it was the tenants responsibility to ensure their own router and internet provider investigated the internet issues initially and if that initial investigation showed the internet issues were not with the tenants router or the provider network, but issues to do with the house, then they should have provided the landlord with that initial investigation data and requested the landlord address those house related issues. There was no evidence provided that the tenants had taken that initial investigation step nor that the internet issues were due to house related issues that the landlord was responsible for addressing. Therefore, I dismiss this tenant claim for insufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. WALL TOUCH CONTROL PANELS:
The parties agreed that one of the touch control panels in the master bedroom was flickering and at times unresponsive. The tenants stated these were old touch control panels, built in the iPod days, that had to be touched two or three times before they would work.
The landlord proved it had a contractor come four times to try to fix these control panels, but the cause of the issue was not fully diagnosed and fixed until a month before the 15 May 2025 hearing.
I find that the landlord took steps to have the control panel issues investigated in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and accept the landlord’s evidence that the cause of the issues was not easy to diagnose and took some time to repair. I dismiss the tenants claim for insufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. HOT WATER:
The tenants and the Alba report confirmed that hot water takes a very long time to come through the pipework (i.e. to the kitchen and showers it takes about 2 minutes). This is because the hot water cylinder is in the cupboard with the sliding doors in the large room above the garage and it is located too far away from the essential service areas required in the main house (bathrooms and the kitchen).
The owner stated that the house is over 1000 square metres, so it depends on where in the house you how long hot water takes to come through the tap. The 5143590, 513486821 owner proved he had Bayden Plumbing undertake a water pressure test on the gate house and the main house and it found the pressure and time to deliver hot water to the essential service areas to be at an acceptable level.
The male tenant refuted this and stated the house has very low pressure and that is why the hot water takes time to flow through to the essential service rooms.
The landlord confirmed that water pressure in this rural property is slightly lower than town water supply and that the tenants had been made aware of this before the tenancy commenced.
I find that the landlord took steps to have the water pressure issues investigated in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and accept the landlord’s evidence that the plumber found no issues with the hot water systems in the premise. The tenant has not produced any evidence from a plumber that refutes this professional assessment. I dismiss the tenants claim for insufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. WATER FILTRATION:
The Alba report and tenants confirm the under-bench carbon filter in the kitchen did not have an installation date on it and that these filters should be changed regularly (every 12 to 24 months). Further, the tenants say the quality of the bore water in the taps has been reported to be cloudy and dirty in appearance and that the carbon filter needed more regular replacement as a result.
The landlord confirmed the filter was replaced by a contractor on 3 February 2025 and would have been replaced sooner but the property manager had issues getting hold of the tenants to get access for the contractor. The property manager stated that eventually he issued the tenant with notice that the contractor was coming in 24 hours as the property manager deemed the issue to be critical.
The tenants say that they never expressed any issues with the property manager giving access to the premise for repair and maintenance work but were unable to be at home to give access to the property themselves. They say they relied on the property manager attending the premise with contractors for repair and maintenance to be carried out and that it was unreasonable for the owner and property manager to expect them to liaise with contractors directly and to be at home while repair and maintenance work was undertaken.
I agree that responsibility for letting contractors into the premise for the purpose of carrying out repairs and maintenance is that of the landlord, unless the tenants expressly state they want to be present when any such repairs and maintenance are carried out. I am satisfied that the tenants never made this a condition for entry into the premise by repair and/or maintenance contractors and that the landlord could have facilitated the requisite repairs and maintenance by informing the tenants in a reasonable timeframe when the contractors were coming to undertake such work and ensuring the contractors had access and the tenants 5143590, 513486822 belongings were protected during the time the contractors were inside the premise.
I find that the property manager was delayed in getting the filter replaced in a timelier manner due to poor communications with the tenants, but that he had taken some steps to arrange a contractor to undertake the work in a reasonable timeframe. There is however some evidence to suggest the quality of the tenants drinking water would have been enhanced by the timelier replacement of the filter and that the property manager could have facilitated entry earlier for the contractor to carry out this work but left it to the contractor to try to make arrangements with the tenants for entry.
I find that the tenants should receive compensation of $10.00 per week for the loss of amenity and inconvenience caused by the delay in having this issue remedied for the 6 weeks and 5-day period from 19 December 2024 to 4 February 2025, being a compensatory sum of $57.14. PLUMBING AND DRAINS:
The tenants and the Alba report confirm there was an issue with water in the drains under the floor between the laundry and bathroom behind the kitchen and that this caused the wastewater to back up in the toilet in that bathroom. The Alba report suggests there may have been a partial blockage that required investigation and clearing. There was no indication that this was one of the earlier issues raised on 2 October 2024 with the property manager. On the evidence provided, it seems likely this was an issue first raised on 6 December 2024.
The landlord gave evidence this issue had been investigated on 14 May 2025 and there was a small leak under the sink that was very minor and has now been fixed. Further, there was no blockage in the wastewater system or the toilet.
I find that the landlord did not investigate this issue in a reasonable timeframe after it was first brought to the landlord’s attention and award the tenants compensation of $10.00 per week for the stress and inconvenience caused by the lack of investigation and remediation of this small leak for the 19 weeks and from 6 December 2024 to 18 April 2025, being a compensatory sum of $190.00. PESTS:
The Alba report and the tenants say that ants were a constant problem in this house and that the landlord should have implemented proper ant control measures to minimize this issue. The tenants confirmed they placed a lot of ant killer in the garage, but these pets came in from the kitchen area and back out the ranch slider. They stated this is a typical of a property with a lot of paving.
The landlord proved the house was sprayed for all pests on 20 January 2025. Considering the owner was not made aware of this pest control issue until 29 December 2024, and there were two to three weeks of holiday period in between that date and the date the pest control spraying took place, I am satisfied the 5143590, 513486823 landlord addressed this issue in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and dismiss the tenants claim for compensation accordingly. INTERNAL TEMPERATURE:
The parties confirmed the house has heated with fireplaces throughout, as if it was built for a cold climate. But there was no provision for any cooling in the premise. The tenants confirmed the master bedroom and annex room got very hot and uncomfortable to be in and say a heat pump with cooling provision should have been provided to alleviate this problem.
The landlord confirmed there is no air conditioning in the house but say there are fans that provide sufficient cooling in these areas.
The owner says it was impossible to install heat pumps, due to the size of the house and confirms he did not agree to the tenants’ requests for air conditioning to be installed in the master bedroom.
Landlords in New Zealand have an obligation to ensure a rental property is not excessively hot in accordance with World Health Organization (WHO) that recommends a minimum indoor temperature of 18°C, or 20°C for houses with young children, elderly people or ill people and an ambient room temperature of between 15°C to 25°C.
The tenants say the room temperature in the master bedroom was well above the ambient temperature range but did not provide the Tribunal with any evidence to prove the temperature in this room went above the recommended WHO ambient temperature range.
The tenants have failed to produce enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities the temperatures in the master bedroom went above the WHO recommended ambient temperature range of 15°C to 25°C. I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities.

WATER AVAILBILITY AND QUALITY

The parties confirmed: a. The water for the premise comes from a bore (dug in 2003); b. There is a main tank that holds 20,000 litres of water and a secondary tank (under the ground) that holds 2,000 litres; c. The water is drawn from the main tank to the filters and UV steriliser to the secondary tank. The water purification system (filters and sterilisers and pump) are housed in the gate house; d. The gate house was locked and not accessible to the tenant; e. The property manager has a key to the garage in the gate house. If there is any issue, the property manager can access the gate house to facilitate any necessary repairs to the water system. 5143590, 513486824
The tenant claims: a. The bore has not been maintained and has a float issue; b. People kept coming to site to check the float issue, but the issue was never resolved; c. After each contractor had been, when the water temporarily returned it was brown and dirty; d. The water had a sulphur smell, and the filters were constantly dirty; and e. The tenants ran out of water 8 to 9 times during the 4.5 month tenancy.
The tenants say the water issue started when the male tenant filled the stagnant pond that had some fish in it, around mid-October 2024. They ran out of water at this time and the issue continued. He says he filled this pond around twice during the tenancy and each time the pond required around 4,000 to 5,00 litres to top up. After that he stopped topping it up as it kept causing the house to run out of water.
The property manager confirmed that on one occasion, he purchased water for the tenants in early December 2024, and it was delivered the next day. A text message from the property manager to the male tenant dated 13 December 2024 shows that the property manager was having a second load of water delivered that day. This text says “ The tenants need to know to turn on all the cold water for 5 mins it will speed the cleaning process up. The pipe from the green tank to the main tank will have debris and potential smell. We will want to flush the water out through the filers/system. The tanks have been cleaned and one load of water delivered. A second delivery is arriving soon. He will turn an outside tap on to flush out also before he leaves”.
The property manager also confirmed that the tenants had been instructed by the contractor, engaged to investigate and remediate this issue, to wait for up to 12 hours for bore to refill the tanks and not to fill the pool, the fountain or the pond during the day when the tenants were ging to require water for showers, cooking, laundry and the like.
The male tenant says he tried to keep the pond clean as he had been asked to do so by the owner and it had fish in it that required clean water to live in. He also says he was asked by the landlord to keep the fountain filled and because the fountain leaked, as it had a crack in the side, it had to be filled more regularly than the bore-based water system could manage. The male tenant says the foundation took about 250 litres of water to run and after he refilled this about 10 times he gave up as it constantly lost water from the crack.
The owner stated that he and his family had not experienced any water availability and/or quality issues when they lived at the premise, and he blamed the water availability issues on the male tenant and his partner’s consumption. 5143590, 513486825
The male tenant says there were only ever two tenants living at the premise and one of these tenants was not there 3 days a week. They say they watered a few plants in the garden, ran the dishwasher three times a week and took a daily shower each on the days they were at the premise and did laundry about twice a week. The tenants say the tanks never filled properly, they ran out of water frequently and each time they called the landlord they were told not to use water for 12 hours. This, they say, in reality meant each time they ran out of water, they were without water for around 24 hours.
The tenants also stated that when the water blaster contractor came on 20 January 2025, it ran out of water in about 30 minutes of its arrival. The property manager confirmed he was called about this water availability issue. The tenants say that based on the volume of water the water tanks are supposed to hold, the water blaster should not have run out of water so quickly. The tenants also confirmed they had not filled the pond, pool or fountain that day and had not even taken showers or done any laundry. This incident, they claim, proves there was a water availability issue that needed addressing.
The tenants say that without consistent access to clean potable water in the premise, they could never entertain clients or family as they never knew when the water would run out suddenly and that often they could not have a shower, cook, do laundry or flush the toilet (unless the tenant took buckets of water from the pool). As a result of the lack of consistent availability of potable water, the tenants claim they had to purchase purchased a carton of 30 or 40 bottles of water at a cost of $150.00 per week. They are seeking compensation for this cost.
The tenants say they had expected a luxury house they were paying $6,500.00 per week to live in would at minimum have a consistent water supply and clean drinkable water . They could not understand why an independent report was never done on the water tanks and the water system to identify the cause of the water availability and quality issues.
[Tenant’s sister’s name suppressed], gave a witness statement about the impact on the tenants of the inconsistent water supply. She states: “I can confirm that there were many instances during her time at [address suppressed] where water was not working and/or of poor quality from October 2024 to February 2025. This created undue stress and lost time – the effects of which rippled into all aspects of [tenants names suppressed lives. [Tenant’s name suppressed] already very long, traffic-ridden commute to Pukekohe was made far worse for her, as it meant an extremely early departure from Albany to have enough time to arrive in Pukekohe to shower before work. Our whole family could not believe how many months passed during which we watched [Tenant’s name suppressed] having to buy crates of bottled drinking water, combined with our weekly Saturday routine of filling up larger containers from my household tap to get her and [Tenant’s name suppressed] through the week. Laundry also became an issue, as she was having to prioritize which garments of theirs to bring to Pukekohe to wash using my amenities, versus which items they could make do with washing 5143590, 513486826 in their tub using water from the containers. 4. My partner and I had plans to come out and stay the night on Saturday 28th December which [Tenant’s names suppressed] cancelled due to the above issues. She was angry and embarrassed at still not being able to cook for us or guarantee a shower. The whole situation was absurdly laughable as we both could not understand why it kept happening - especially in a so-called “luxury” property. I’ve never heard of such a debacle in all my life. Not even for people paying 1/10th of the rent this property costs – to not even have the most basic of human requirements?!...Absolutely disgusting”.
A chain of emails between the male tenant and the property manager proves that the parties were discussing water availability and quality issues in writing from 9 December 2024
The owner says he was first made aware by text of the water issue by the tenant on 10 December 2024 and that because he resided overseas, he contacted the property manager straight away and asked him to address the issue with urgency. He noted that when he and his family of four lived there, and had people staying in the guest house, they had never experienced water availability or quality issues.
The landlord says that Pure Water Services and Aqua Fresh Services came out a maximum of 5 times to investigate and remediate the issues. Firstly, Mr Warren came on site and found there was an issue with the water. He changed the filters and cleaned both tanks and reported to the owner that he thought a wall on the bore may have collapsed and it required further investigation. Mr Warren then sold his business to Aqua Fresh, and Aqua Fresh came out to investigate and try to remediate the issue again at least 3 or 4 more times.
On the third or fourth time Aqua Fresh’s contactor reported to the owner there was a problem with the valve. It had been turned off and Aqua Fresh thought this was causing the latest water availability issue.
The landlord confirmed the valve that was turned off was not in the locked gate house garage. It was outside where anyone could lift the lid and turn and off the water from the main tank to the secondary tank. The bore feeds both tanks but when this value was turned off, the contractor stated that stopped the water going to the secondary tank and this stopped the main house from being able to access water from the secondary tank.
The owner says he addressed the issues as fast as possible and that it took multiple visits from Aqua Fresh before they finally figured out the flow to the main house was not adequate for the volume of water being used. Sanaa Naaz from Aqua Fresh confirmed to me that she implemented a faster flow of water, that the parties agreed had resolved the water issues. The property manager says he thinks this was fixed in late January 2025. The invoice date for this work was 3 February 2025 and the invoice records that the final visit occurred on 3 February 2025. 5143590, 513486827
Sanaa Naaz from Aqua Fresh also gave evidence that when more water than was able to flow quickly from the bore to the tank was being used, the water being pulled from the bore became dirtied and discoloured.
Commentary from invoice proves the landlord did take steps to have the persistent water issue investigated in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances but that the issue took 4 to 5 visits to identify and remedy. The invoice notes at “today’s visit 3 February 2025, we would like to record the high amount of water usage at the property. Filters have become clogged due to this high usage and filling the pool and pond at same time”. It also notes “the piping has been upgraded to high flow, filter replaced, water check done at guest house and main house and it is clear and flowing through. Also had issues gaining access to carry out the work. Other minor valve being turned off. Not sure how this occurred. Doing weekly checks to check the filters are not clogged. Do not understand the need to fill the pool. Filling the pond when wife is ill not a priority.” The contractor confirmed to me that there had been no more call outs from 3 February 2025, but she maintained the high flow pipes were not necessary and Aqua Fresh only installed them as part of it going the extra mile to fix the issue.
Given the filters had been replaced repeatedly and became clogged again quickly and the water issues had persisted until the high flow pipes were installed, I find that it is more likely than not that these high flow pipes were necessary.
While I am satisfied that the landlord did not intentionally fail to remedy the water availability issues and the water quality issues in a reasonable timeframe, I find that the tenants evidence proves that they suffered a significant stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity from mid-October 2024 to 3 February 2025 where they did not have consistent access to water, at times went without access to water for up to 24 hours at a time, and suffered water quality issues due to the bore being depleted for periods of time and having to wait for more bore water to flow from the ground to be pumped into the water tanks. This caused the water to be cloudy and discoloured at times.
I award the tenants compensation of $100.00 per week for this loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience caused during the period 14 October 2024 to 3 February 2025 that it took to remediate these water availability and quality issues. This is a period of 16 weeks, being a compensatory sum of $1,600.00. In addition, I reimburse the tenants the $150.00 per week they spent on purchasing bottled water for 16 weeks, being a reimbursement sum of $2,400.00. Mould (External Mould)
The tenants submit that there was extensive mould present at the property and that the owner did not address this problem until Monday 20 th January 2025, when the house was chemically washed. They state that this means they were living with dangerous unhealthy mould and fungus present on the outside of the house and on the roof from move in date to the 20th January 2025. 5143590, 513486828
The tenants submitted an email dated 8 May 2025 from Gary at Aquawash to the owner of the property that states: “...The job was successfully completed by my team on the morning of Monday, 20th January 2025. We carried out a full chemical soft wash of the property exterior, including the cladding walls, exterior windows, doors, eaves, soffits, and the facing of the gutters. This gentle yet highly effective process helped to remove all the built- up dirt, algae, mould and fungus, leaving the house looking neat, clean, tidy, and refreshed. Your tenant was present on-site during the cleaning, and we appreciated their cooperation while we worked. Everything was done with care to ensure the highest standard of workmanship and to protect the surfaces being cleaned. Following the exterior wash, we also completed a comprehensive spider treatment, ensuring the property remains protected from spider activity and maintaining its clean appearance . We’re very pleased with how the property turned out, and it’s always rewarding to see the transformation after a deep clean like this. It was great to hear that you were happy with the results—we truly appreciate your kind feedback and ongoing trust in our services...”
This email suggests that there was mould and fungus on the outside of the house and o the roof. However, during the hearing Rajwant Singh Sandhar (Gary) that washed the house stated there was no black mould on the external cladding of the main house and that he and his team had not undertaken mould or fungus treatment on the house, only a normal chemical wash. Further, he stated that there was “nothing dangerous” growing on the external areas of the house and that all that was present was “normal dust, dirt and grime on the house that was not harmful for anyone”. He said he did not recommend mould treatment as he did not think it necessary. Further he stated that although “for the main house they did not do moss and mould treatment, they recommended and undertook this treatment on the guest house”.
The tenants say every windowsill was black with mould and he produced videos and photographs of the mould he was referring to during the hearing, much on which focus on the windowsills but says that he never had this alleged mould tested. The male tenant stated that the contractor told him that the house would not have been washed for at least 8 years.
Landlords are legally obligated to provide a property that is free from mould and dampness. This includes addressing issues on the exterior of the house, such as leaking gutters, damaged roofs, or poor ventilation that could contribute to mould growth.
The contractor’s 8 May 2025 email to the owner confirms that in his opinion the cladding walls, exterior windows, doors, eaves, soffits, and the facing of the gutters all exhibited a build-up of dirt, algae, mould and fungus. There has also been evidence provided that there were some guttering issues that led to mould or moss growth on at least one area of the deck. 5143590, 513486829
The tenant informed the landlord as soon as he found mould on the outside of a rental property, being around 19 December 2024. The landlord took appropriate action, by having the house cleaned on 20 January 2025. The owner also gave evidence that he has also engaged Jamie Naylor to investigate and repair any damaged areas and address other contributing factors.
I am satisfied that on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has investigated and remedied the issues that led to mould issues on the external areas of the main house is a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. The tenants claim for compensation for this breach is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities. 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 on 6 September 2024. As such, the landlord was required to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards from the 120th day after the tenancy commenced, being 4 January 2025.
The landlord commissioned a healthy homes assessment report, dated 16 May 2024, 4 months before the tenancy commenced. This report and compliance certificate proves the premise complied all five of the healthy homes’ standards at the start of the tenancy and that the landlord was issued a certificate of compliance that it was entitled to rely on. It does note that the landlord and tenant must agree in writing that the three fireplaces do not need to be blocked to prevent draughts. Whilst there is no such written agreement in the tenancy agreement, 5143590, 513486830 the parties have indicated during the hearing that these fireplaces were to be used by the tenants for heating the premise. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor Did the premise comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises, including but not limited to the Housing Regulations 1947?
The 16 May 2024 Healthy Homes Report indicates the main house met the moisture ingress and drainage standard not four months before the tenancy commenced. Therefore, I find that the drainage issues the tenants have raised are repair and maintenance breaches rather than healthy homes breaches.
I dismiss this claim for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord breach its s45(1)(c) of the RTA obligations to the tenants?
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.
Section 7(2)(a) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) states “There shall be in each kitchen or kitchenette, an approved sink with a tap connected to an adequate supply of potable water”.
Section 9(2) of the HIR states “every bathroom shall contain an approved bath or shower with an adequate supply of wholesome water. Adequate means of heating water shall be provided”.
Section 2 of the HIR states that potable water means “water that (a) is safe to drink; and (b) complies with the drinking water standards. Further, section 2 of the HIR defines drinking water standards as the standards made under section 47 of the Water Services Act 2021”.
The property is a rural property that relies on a bore and water pump/filtration system for adequate access to potable water. The tenants say there was no reliable source of water for the period 14 October 2024 to 3 February 2025, as outlined in paragraphs [134] to [156] above.
I am satisfied the tenants have proven they were not provided with sufficient potable water to meet the landlord’s section 7 and 9 of the HIR obligations or the s45(1)(c) of the RTA obligations to the tenants, and that it was not reasonable in 5143590, 513486831 all the circumstances for the landlord to leave the tenants without a reliable ad adequate water supply for 16 weeks.
I do not find the owner intentionally put the tenants to the stress and inconvenience of being without consistent and reliable access to potable water in the bathrooms, kitchen and toilet. The owner has proven he took steps in a reasonable timeframe to investigate the cause of the intermittent and sometime dirty water supply but it took time for the contractors to identify the issue and remedy it.
I award the tenants a compensatory sum of $1,600.00 for these two breaches of s45(1)(c) of the RTA and two breaches of the HIR.
I am satisfied that there is no evidence to support this breach being intentional. Therefore, no exemplary damages will be awarded for this proven breach. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed twelve intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) of the RTA and two of the HIR and two of s45(1)(c). These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenants paying rent to live in a luxury home but living in sub-optimal living conditions, such as being without an adequate supply of clean potable water, and they experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenities they are paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief or to contribute to the tenants bottled water usage.
I find the landlord has committed these sixteen unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, not only failing to offer the tenants a rent rebate for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity caused but putting them to the cost of buying bottled water and not being able to use the house for entertaining customers and potential customers , one of the key reasons the male tenant rented the house.
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 is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $4,800.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being two thirds of the maximum penalty available for s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment? 5143590, 513486832
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 male tenant confirmed that he had been informed at the start of the tenancy that his point of contact was the property manager. His understanding was that he would not have contact with the owners and that all the communication would go through the property management company engaged to manage the property as the owner lived overseas.
In October 2024, the male tenant complained to the property manager about the inappropriate number of texts he received from the landlord. He says he was receiving texts daily from the owner in October 2024 and it was intense. The text messages were produced to the Tribunal and there were a number of them where the owner is chatting to the tenant about the property, how the fish and the pond were and reinforcing how much he and his family miss living there and that he has entrusted it to the tenants. The tenant says he initially responded as he did not want to appear rude but eventually responded with single words such as no. On 10 October 2024 the landlord sent the male tenant a text that says “...I have just had a call with Max. My sincere apologies at the messages or calls. It was not my intention to bother you at all. I’m just a friendly and caring person and also wanted to get to know you. But my apologies for bothering you and won’t communicate unless you require something from me...no problem and happy to help...”
Post the 10 October 2024 message, the evidence proves the owner did continue to contact the tenant every two or three days and the tenant gave evidence that the owner tried to coerce the tenant to stop dealing with the property manager and to start to liaise with Harcourts as he was wanting to replace Alba as property managers but had not at that time informed Alba that he was going to make this change.
Alba Property Management confirmed that they were approached by the owner at this time who wanted to negotiate a reduction in fee. At this time, the property manager stated that the relationship between the owner and the property management company soured as the owner was going behind the property 5143590, 513486833 management company’s back and trying to build a relationship with the tenant so that it would be easier for the owner to change property management companies.
The tenant says the owner approach was to reiterate over and again that the tenants were privileged to live in the house, was overbearing and didn’t stop.
The owner also came to NZ to oversee the gatehouse renovations for around 3 weeks after the tenancy commenced, from 24 to 28 November 2024. The owner was staying at the gatehouse and made contact with the male tenant stating that he wanted to catch up with the tenants while he was at the premise. The tenants say they started to try to avoid contact with the owner when he was onsite but that the owner had approached the male tenant and berated him about speaking to the property manager about the Harcourts issue and said someone was lying between the tenant and the property manager about what had occurred.
The owner confirmed that he has asked Alba to drop its rate from 6% to 3% as he thought that the property management company was not doing a good jo of managing the property as evidenced by all the tenant issues being raised repeatedly. The property manager stated that it was the owner not wanting to spend money on repair issues he deemed non-urgent that had led to the issues with the tenants.
The Owner says he never crossed the boundary of the gate house and the main house during his November 2024 visit and that he never went to the main house at all. The owner says he was at the gatehouse driveway and the male tenant noticed him and drove into the gatehouse driveway, so he took the opportunity to question the tenant about why he had discussed the Harcourts matter with the property manager.
The owner says that he and the property manager have had disagreements about the management of the property from before the tenants moved in. He says the property manager had talked to the media about finalising rental with a prominent NZ family that impacted on the trust relationship the owner had with that family .
The male tenant says the owner was trying hard to get the tenant to go against the property manager and he did not want to do that.
The property manager confirmed the tenant has raised issues with too many text messages in October 2024 and the property manager spoke to the owner and sent a follow up email about the issue in early December 2024. I saw the text chain that shows the owner texted at least three times a week saying how they missed the house and how the tenants had been entrusted with the estate.
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. 5143590, 513486834
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,500.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The owner knew the tenants were uncomfortable with it repeatedly messaging and calling the male tenant but he continued to do so and involved the male tenant in his issues with the property management company and his desire to change to Harcourts as his agent and property managers; b. The tenants felt harassed and like they were under the constant pressure to report on what they were doing with the main house and grounds and they considered the owner’s refusal to go through the property manager and not to them directly was disrespectful of their desire for peace, privacy, and the quiet enjoyment of the property they were paying rent for; c. it is in the interests of the tenants 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 their obligations to allow tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA. accordingly.

Should the 5-year fixed term tenancy be ended early?

The tenants have applied for reduction of their five-year fixed-term tenancy, which commenced on 6 September 2024 and was due to end on 1 September 2029. The basis for their application for the Tribunal to end their tenancy early is two-fold: a. There has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances, there would be severe hardship to the tenants if the term is not reduced and the tenants hardship would be greater than the hardship to the landlord’s if the term is reduced. b. The house was unliveable because of ongoing breaches of the tenancy agreement by the landlord that, when combined, are so significant that they constitute a repudiation of the tenancy agreement, such as: i. Failure to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises, for example the premise having an unreliable and illegal water supply from a bore that provides dirty water that does not meet the statutorily required water quality standards and the cladding on the premise not meeting building regulations (s45(1)(c); 5143590, 513486835 ii. Failing to 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 (s45(1)(b) of the RTA); and iii. Failure to comply with the healthy homes’ standards (s45(1)(bb) of the RTA). The law
Parties enter into a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment.
If a tenant wishes to default on that contract, and the landlord accepts the repudiation, then the tenancy ends on the terms agreed. In such a situation of surrender the landlord does not have to agree and can stipulate terms provided they are reasonable. Such reasonable terms can be to ensure the aggrieved party (here the landlord) be placed in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement.
If the parties cannot agree to end the tenancy, it is open to the tenants to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term pursuant to section 66(1) RTA.
The Tribunal reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
Section 66 sets a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies. The jurisdiction in this section is an extension to the doctrine of frustration found in the general law of contract. In most cases, s66 is used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed term agreements can create severe hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them, and landlords, who have financial obligations and expectations of their own arising from the same bargain.
The term “unforeseen” is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (“foreseeability”) in cases relating to negligence (in determining whether a duty of care is owed and what damages are reasonably foreseeable) and in cases assessing damages for breach of contract (also in assessing the remoteness of damage). In both contexts, there is a body of case law which has established that: 5143590, 513486836 a. Foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform himself of the circumstances; b. an outcome is foreseeable in legal terms if it is “liable to result”, “not unlikely”, “quite likely”, a “real danger”, a “serious possibility” or a “real risk”; c. The term “unforeseen” has few if any direct dictionary definitions, but by thesaurus is aligned with such concepts as “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”, thus being “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk”.
Unforeseen circumstances can include a sudden and unforeseeable loss of employment or of a tenant’s business when the tenant derives all his income from that business or employment. An unforeseen circumstance can also be a landlord’s ongoing breach of its obligations to the tenant under the tenancy agreement terms, and under the provisions set out in the RTA, when those breaches are: a. Of essential/significant terms and conditions of the tenancy; and b. Are either not capable of remedy or have not been remedied in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances; and c. The breaches are so significant that they repudiate the tenancy agreement.
Alternatively, s56 of the RTA states: (1) On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (a) the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and (b)in the case of a breach capable of remedy,— (i)the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and (ii)the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and (c) that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
The RTA is the primary legislation governing residential tenancy agreements. However, the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (“CCLA”) can apply in some limited circumstances, generally where the RTA is silent or does not fully 5143590, 513486837 address a contractual issue and general contract law principles are needed to interpret the agreement or address contractual mistakes, misrepresentation by the landlord or repudiation.
Where neither s66 or s 56 of the RTA fully address the reasons why the tenants are seeking a reduction in the five year fixed term tenancy, Subpart 2 (Contractual Mistakes) or Subpart 3 (Contractual Mistakes) of the CCLA could be applied where one party to a tenancy agreement proves that they entered into the agreement based on false and misleading information or that one party breached the essential terms of the agreement to such an extent that it has repudiated the tenancy agreement.
Section 78(1) RTA states that the Tribunal may, in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction make orders that the High Court or the District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts and this includes orders by the courts made under subpart 3 of the CCLA.
Section 34 CCLA provides that the purpose of subpart 3 is to provide remedies for misrepresentation, repudiation, or breach of contract, or any other contractual matters where there is an express provision for other matters to which sections 35 to 49 relate.
Section 36 CCLA provides that, subject to the rest of subpart C, a party to a contract may cancel the contract if, by words or conduct, another party repudiates the contract by making it clear that (a) the other party does not intend to perform its obligations under the contract; or (b) complete the performance of its obligations under the contract.
Section 37of CCLA provides that: (1)a party may cancel contract if induced to enter into it by misrepresentation or if term is or will be breached and that a party to a contract may cancel it if: (a)the party has been induced to enter into it by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, made by or on behalf of another party to the contract; or (b)a term in the contract is breached by another party to the contract; or (c)it is clear that a term in the contract will be breached by another party to the contract. (2)If subsection (1)(a), (b), or (c) applies, a party may exercise the right to cancel the contract if, and only if,— (a)the parties have expressly or impliedly agreed that the truth of the representation or, as the case may require, the performance of the term is essential to the cancelling party; or 5143590, 513486838 (b) the effect of the misrepresentation or breach of the contract is, or, in the case of an anticipated breach, will be,— (i) substantially to reduce the benefit of the contract to the cancelling party; or (ii) substantially to increase the burden of the cancelling party under the contract; or (iii) in relation to the cancelling party, to make the benefit or burden of the contract substantially different from that represented or contracted for. (3) Subsection (1) is subject to the rest of this subpart, but does not limit section 36
Section 38 of CCLA provides that a party is not entitled to cancel the contract if, with full knowledge of the repudiation, misrepresentation, or breach, the party has affirmed the contract.
For completeness, I note that section 85 RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises and determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Analysis & findings: Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenants circumstances?
There was no agreement between the parties to end the fixed term lease early.
The tenants moved out of the premise on 28 February 2025, as they could no longer afford the rent due.
There has been no evidence provided by either party that proves the tenants gave legal notice terminating the fixed term tenancy agreement, nor that they had given the landlord clear, unequivocal and advanced notice of a termination date. The landlord proved the tenants keep unilaterally varying their move out date, so the landlord had not been able to rely on a date he would have vacant possession and could prepare to market the premise for rent.
The tenants submitted that they had asked the property manager in December 2024 if there was any way they could end the fixed term tenancy early as the male tenant’s company’s main contract was becoming fragile and was looking like it may come to a sudden end. Without this main contract, the male tenant confirms he knew he would be unable to meet the monthly rent payments. He did not disclose to the property manager the reason he was seeking to end the fixed term tenancy early. 5143590, 513486839
The parties confirmed the tenant instigated negotiations with the landlord in January and early February 2025 for a reduction in the monthly rental rate from $28,166.00 per month to $23,000 per month. The owner says he thought the tenants were seeking this rent reduction because of the various issues they had with the house since the commencement of the tenancy and that, while he was not in agreement that the house was not is a good state of repair, he was willing to drop the rent to try to retain the tenants while significant amounts of work were being undertaken on the property.
As a result of these negotiations, on 13 February 2025 the owner made an offer to reduce to rent to $23,000.00 per month. He stated that he was shocked when he found out the tenants wanted to move out within a week of him having made this rent reduction offer.
The male tenant confirmed that on 14 February 2025 his business went into voluntary liquidation, after suddenly losing its main contract without much warning, and he was unable to pay even this reduced rent amount. He also confirmed that his female flatmate was only living at the house part-time and paying rental elsewhere, so had never really contributed much to the $6,500.00 per week rent payments. He stated that he had not informed the owner nor the property manager that he had been struggling since mid-December 2024 to try and keep his business liquid, and that by 14 February 2025 it had been confirmed that his business had lost all of its contracts, had no income, and there was no prospect of his business securing any new contracts in the foreseeable future. At that time, he had to terminate the employment of his four employees and, after selling any assets his business, he still has both secured and unsecured creditors that his business/he still owes considerable sums of money too.
The female tenant lives and works in Pukekohe from Wednesday through to Saturday every week and pays rent at a premise in Pukekohe. She stayed with the male tenant at the rental property in Paremoremo from Sunday to Tuesday each week, and contributed to the day to day living expenses, but was unable financially to contribute to the payment of rent on the Paremoremo property.
The male tenant also confirmed he currently has no assets, no savings, no term deposits or the like. He also confirmed his rent and day to day living expenses are being paid by his parents, as he has been unable to find any work since the liquidation of his business. Additionally, he confirmed the bond for his current rental was also paid for by his parents.
The owner confirmed that he intends to hold the tenants liable for the rent until the end of the fixed term lease, or until a new tenant is found for the main house, moves into it, and starts paying rent.
The owner also confirmed he accepts that it is unreasonable to hold the tenants to the rent for the remainder of the five-year lease, but says he is finding it difficult to find suitable tenants for this high-end luxury property. He also states that it may 5143590, 513486840 be harder to rent the property out at the moment as the rental market is quiet and because he wants to continue to retain the minor dwelling (known as the gate house) for storage of his belongings and as a place for he and his family to stay when they return to New Zealand periodically for short stays, as they live in Hong Kong.
The tenants have sought relief from the Tribunal in the form of an application pursuant to s66 for their tenancy to be ended earlier than 1 September 2029.
Section 66 of the RTA is clear that it must the applicants’ circumstances that have changed in an unforeseeable way, not external factors such as the rental market not being conducive to either party reletting the premise or the tenants not being able to sublet the premise for the remainer of the fixed term lease or changes in the condition of the property making the property difficult to relet.
I then turn to an application of s66 of the RTA to this situation. Having considered the facts, I find: a. There has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. b. The male tenant was responsible for the payment of the rent for this premise. He rented the premise to use it for business related entertainment purposes to assist with the success of his business. His partner only stayed with him up to three days a week. He was the main income earner and relied on the continued success of his business to pay the $6,500.00 per week rent. c. The male tenant’s business losing all its contracts suddenly and having to rapidly go into voluntary liquidation was not foreseeable when the tenants signed a five-year fixed term agreement to rent this luxury premise. d. The tenants say the rental market is bad and they could not find someone to take over the lease at the rental rate they were paying and considered the property manager and owner would be better placed to try to relet the luxury premise. Especially when the premise required and was undergoing significant renovation/remedial works.
Having established an unforeseen change in circumstances I must now weight the respective hardships of the parties.
The owner raised with me that the male tenant has interests in another business and questioned whether the tenants’ financial circumstances are as dire as they has indicated to the Tribunal. The male tenant confirmed that business was a shell company that had been set up with a group of investors that wanted to explore importing modular components from China but it had never made any money because there were no compliance codes for the stainless steel components they wanted to import. He stated that two of the four investors/shareholders had withdrawn from the business and the business was in the process of being shut down and removed from the Companies Office register by the third investor/shareholder. Having considered all the evidence in 5143590, 513486841 relation to the tenant’s financial hardship, I am satisfied, on balance, the tenants have proven they will suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy is not reduced. That is, they have proven that the hardship they will suffer, if the tenancy is to continue until the end of the five-year fixed term or until new tenants move in, is far more than ordinary hardship. The male tenant is relying on his parents to house and feed him and for all other day to day living expenses. The female tenant is living with her sister and does not earn enough to keep paying $6,500.00 rent per week until a new tenant is found without declaring bankruptcy.
The owner has confirmed he would suffer hardship if the term were reduced as he relies on the rental income to support repayment of his other investments and relied on the rental income to subsidise the cost of the new home he has in Hong Kong. The owner of the rental premise has a thriving international business but the markets volatile and he is concerned that the loss of rental income in the vicinity of over $100,000.00 will have a significant impact on his business and his ability to fund repayments on his other investments. He has not proven on the balance of probabilities he would suffer severe hardship, nor that any hardship he would suffer would be greater than that suffered by the tenants.
I empathise with both parties’ circumstances. However, as an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances has been established, as their financial hardship being greater than that of the owner of the premise if I was to reduce the fixed term of the tenancy. As such, I find that the tenants have proven the grounds required for the Tribunal to reduce the fixed term tenancy under s66 of the RTA and that there is no need for me to examine whether the tenancy should have been reduced under s56 of the RTA or under subpart 3 of the CCLA.
I now turn to the date on which the Tribunal says the fixed term tenancy should be ended.

When does the fixed term tenancy end?

The parties confirm that the male tenant told the property manager that they wanted to move out in late December 2024 when the property manager approached the tenants about the rent arrears. The tenants had been unable to make the December 2024 rent payment as all the monies the tenants had received went to paying lawyers and winding up the male tenant’s company. The male tenant submitted that he had informed the property manager at that time that the tenants intended to move out in February 2025. The tenants say this means they gave the landlord more than three weeks’ notice, but confirmed that this discussion was at the same time as the parties were trying to negotiate a rent reduction and that they did not move out on the initial date indicated.
I have not been provided any evidence that proves the tenants gave lawful notice to the landlord, in terms of the requirements set out in s51(3) of the RTA. Therefore, the landlord was not clear whether or not the tenants were going to 5143590, 513486842 actually move out, and if they were, the move out date. This made it difficult for the landlord to market the property as it had no certainty about a vacant possession date. The property manager did inform the tenants they would be liable for the rent until new tenants were found and the owner reiterated that he intended to make the tenants comply with that legal obligation.
The parties also confirmed that the tenants never informed the property manager that they were in such a bad financial situation but had indicated at times that they wanted to bring the fixed term to an end because of all the repair and maintenance issues. The tenants say that they had made it clear they wanted to move out, but not exactly when, and that the tenants’ application to the tribunal, made on 22 January 2025, made it clear in they wanted to end the fixed term tenancy under s66 of the RTA on 31 January 2025.
The owner confirmed that on 4 February 2025 he was still discussing and agreed to a rent reduction to allow the tenancy to remain on foot and he was shocked when the tenants moved out on 28 February 2025 with no written notice.
The tenants say the landlord has taken no steps to mitigate its losses by advertising or marketing the premise to get new tenants after receiving the tenants Tribunal application seeking to end the tenancy on 31 January 2025 or after they moved out on 28 February 2025.
The RTA does not require a landlord to mitigate its losses when a tenant abandons a fixed term tenancy early. However, the property manager proved that it has advertised the property on trade me but has not been able to get new tenants to take up the remainder of the fixed term lease nor to rent it for shorter periods. The owner has also proven he has been having discussions with friends who may want to rent the premise and is also having discussions with other providers that can run a marketing campaign for the luxury premise now the renovations are complete.
I find that the tenants remained in the premise until 28 February 2025, well after the date they indicated in their Tribunal application and that they never issued the landlord with a formal written notice of their intention to terminate the tenancy on 28 February 2025. As such, I find that the tenancy ends 21 days after the tenants left the premise on 28 February 2025, thereby giving the landlord 3 weeks’ notice of their intention to end the tenancy. As such, the tenancy ended on 21 March 2025. 5143590, 513486843 LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

I have found above that the tenancy ended on 21 March 2025, being 21 days after the tenants moved out on 28 February 2025 without giving reasonable, clear and unambiguous notice to the landlord terminating the tenancy.
The tenants paid $28,166.00 rent a month in advance. Payments were made on the 26 th of each month for the period 26 th of the month to the 25 th of the next month.
Rent records show the tenants last paid rent on 26 November 2025, so as of 25 December 2024 there were no rent arrears. At this time the male tenant was trying to save his business and livelihood and was unable to make any further rent payments. As such, at the end of the tenancy, the tenants still owed $70,855.14 in rent arrears, made up of: a. $28,166.00 for the period 26 December 2024 to 25 January 2025; b. $28,166.00 for the period 26 January 2025 to 25 February 2025; and c. $23,523.14 for the period 26 February 2025 to 21 March 2025; (four days less than the full month, subtracted at $4,642.86 (being $6,500 divided by 7 and multiplied by 5).
The landlord provided rent records which prove these amounts were still owing at the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants responsible for break lease fees?

The tenants can be ordered to pay reasonable compensation for any loss or damage that has resulted from the reduction in the term of the fixed term tenancy.
The tenants are legally considered to have abandoned the fixed term tenancy before the end of the fixed term. The tenancy agreement provides for a break lease fee on one week’s rent plus GST.
The property manager initially sought $6,500.00 plus GST ($7,475.00 ) as break lease fees but confirmed the property management company had only incurred expenses of approximately $267.84 for break lease administration fees, advertising fees and credit check fees because of the fixed term lease being ended 54 months early. The property manager did not produce any evidence that it incurred reasonable costs of $267.84 for break lease fees, the owner confirms that he has not been charged nor paid any break lease fees to the property management company and the tenants confirmed they had never been given an itemised break lease fee account from the property manager or the owner.
I dismiss the landlord claim for compensation for break lease fees as it has not provided sufficient evidence to prove its claim on the balance of probabilities. 5143590, 513486844 Failure to allow reasonable entry to tradespeople for scheduled maintenance.
The landlord is claiming exemplary damages for the tenants alleged failure to allow reasonable entry to tradespeople for scheduled maintenance.
Section 48(1)(d) of the RTA provides that “for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry”.
Section 48(4)(b) provides that failure by the tenant, without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter upon the premises in any circumstances in which the landlord is entitled to enter under subsections (2) to (3) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be awarded (Refer Schedule 1A of the RTA).
The evidence produced by the landlord party demonstrates that the property manager and the tenants communication was not as good as it could have been and that the property manager left the male tenant to liaise with a significant number of contractors over the final few months of the tenancy and expected him to take these contractors calls, arrange times to let them into the gated property and main house to undertake remedial works and extensive renovation of the minor gate house dwelling during his working hours. The male tenant gave evidence that he tried to accommodate texts and calls from contractors requesting access where he could, but he was not always able to answer their calls and/or texts or to get home to grant them access.
I am satisfied that the tenants never instructed the landlord not to enter the premise for the purpose of carrying out scheduled maintenance or repairs and that the property manager should not have been relying on contractors contacting the tenants directly and the tenants taking time off work to give the contractors access to the premise. It is clear from the evidence produced that the property manager did just that and the tenants accommodated this when they could but got fed up with the sheer number of times, they were required by the landlord to undertake what is essentially a part of what they were charging management fees to do.
I dismiss this claim for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Interference with the property, specifically the functionality of the water valve.
The landlord is claiming exemplary damages for the tenants’ alleged interference with the property, specifically the functionality of the water valve. 5143590, 513486845
Section 40(2)(a) of the RTA provides that a tenant “shall not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises”. There is no exemplary damages provided for this type of breach in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
At the hearing, the landlord claimed it had never asked for exemplary damages under this head of claim and only mentioned this incident as a background statement. The landlord withdrew this claim at the hearing.

OTHER CLAIMS

Return of the owner’s wine

At the 17 March 2025 preliminary hearing, the male tenant and the property manager agreed that at 4pm on Friday 21 March 2025, they would meet at an address in Birkenhead for the purpose of the tenants returning the owner’s wine and the property manager returning the tenants dog portrait, if the parties have not already swapped these items at the exit inspection on 20 March 2025.
At the 15 May 2025 hearing, the parties confirmed the male tenant had not attended the exit inspection on 20 March 2025 as his father became ill and he had to leave Auckland to assist his father. As such, the portrait and wine were not returned to the appropriate parties by 21 March 2025.
After the 15 May 2025 hearing, the property manager returned the portrait to the male tenant and the male tenant agreed to return the wine to the property manager by midday on 16 May 2025. He did not do so and as at today’s date I have had no confirmation that the wine has been returned to the owner or the property manager by the tenants.
On 20 May 2025 I gave directions to the parties that if I had not had “confirmation that the wine has been returned by 4pm today I will be ordering the tenants pay the landlord $1,200.00 for the wine.
The landlord has confirmed by email on 28 May 2025 that the wine has not been returned to him. I therefore award the landlord compensation of $1,200.00 for the wine the tenants have unlawfully retained. Reimbursement of Filing Fee
Because the tenants and the landlord have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed both filing fees. 5143590, 513486846 Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its 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 landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest and justified because of the landlord’s conduct.
Non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details is granted.
The tenants have sought non-publication of their names and identifying details during the hearing.
The tenants may find it difficult to get alternative accommodation if their names are published. They have not engaged in any conduct that would prevent the Tribunal ordering non-publication of their names and I am satisfied that the public interest in this matter does not outweigh the significant duress publishing the tenants’ names could result in when they apply for future tenancies. I therefore used my discretion to grant them suppression of their names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5143509 — Rent arrears

Tenancy Tribunal case 5143509 — Rent arrears

Order

Reasons

PARTIES SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

POOL AREA

EXTERNAL CLADDING AND PERGOLA

WATER AVAILBILITY AND QUALITY

Should the 5-year fixed term tenancy be ended early?

When does the fixed term tenancy end?

How much is owed for rent?

Are the tenants responsible for break lease fees?

OTHER CLAIMS

Order

Reasons

PARTIES SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

POOL AREA

EXTERNAL CLADDING AND PERGOLA

WATER AVAILBILITY AND QUALITY

Should the 5-year fixed term tenancy be ended early?

When does the fixed term tenancy end?

How much is owed for rent?

Are the tenants responsible for break lease fees?

OTHER CLAIMS