What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146649 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5146649?

Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146649?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12471036-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146649 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5146649?

Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146649?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12471036-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5146649 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146649 — net $1,500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 July 2025	$2,800.00		Rent arrears to 17 July 2025
Compensation – deck		$400.00	Compensation – deck
Compensation – peace, comfort, privacy		$500.00	Compensation – peace, comfort, privacy
Compensation – electricity		$400.00	Compensation – electricity
Total award	$2,800.00	$1,300.00
Net award	$1,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,500.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146649 — net $1,500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 July 2025	$2,800.00		Rent arrears to 17 July 2025
Compensation – deck		$400.00	Compensation – deck
Compensation – peace, comfort, privacy		$500.00	Compensation – peace, comfort, privacy
Compensation – electricity		$400.00	Compensation – electricity
Total award	$2,800.00	$1,300.00
Net award	$1,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Malcolm Kirkby $7,305.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On or about 20 November 2023, the landlord granted the tenant the right to occupy a cabin on the landlord’s property. The agreement was not in writing. At the time, the tenant was in custody. The Court granted the tenant electronically monitored bail to the property. Subsequently, the tenant was sentenced to home detention, also to be served at the property until June 2025.
The property is a standalone unit with an open plan bedroom, living space, kitchenette, and a bathroom with toilet and shower. The applicant had exclusive possession of the property. The landlord resided in a house nearby. The rent was $200.00 per week, which included electricity.
On 07 February 2025, the landlord issued the tenant a notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenant filed a claim with the Tribunal challenging the notice and alleging that the landlord had failed to meet their obligations.
The landlord challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal claiming that there was no residential tenancy agreement between the parties.
On 23 April 2025, the Tribunal determined that there was a residential tenancy agreement. The Tribunal declared the notice to be invalid and of no effect. The Tribunal dismissed a claim that the notice was retaliatory. The balance of the tenant’s claims was adjourned.
On 26 May 2025, the landlord filed a counterclaim seeking termination, rent arrears, and compensation.
Both parties appeared and provided additional evidence in support of their claims. The parties advised that following the last hearing, the landlord had served a 90-day notice, and that the tenancy had ended on 17 July 2025. This notice has not been challenged by the tenant, who has vacated the property. Claims
The tenant claims: i. The landlord had failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards relating to insulation, ventilation, heating, moisture ingress, and draught stopping, ii. The landlord had failed to maintain the floor in a reasonable condition, iii. They should be reimbursed for improvements they have made to the property namely, the deck, water heating system, and installing a vinyl floor, iv. That the rent should be reduced to account for a change in water heating system from electric to gas, which the tenant then supplied, v. The landlord had interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, amounting to harassment.
The tenant seeks, compensation, and exemplary damages.
The landlord claims: i. The tenant owes rent arrears to the end of the tenancy, ii. Is liable for damage to a screen door and the floor.
The landlord seeks rent arrears and compensation.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the party making them. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. Each party must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
During the hearing, the landlord sought leave to produce a builder’s report after the hearing had concluded. The landlord stated while the tenancy had ended, they had only recently been in a position to inspect the property, and that a report was not yet available.
The landlord’s application was filed on 26 May 2025. There have been directions made for both parties to provide disclosure of evidence before the hearing. An inspection notice could have been issued and the investigation completed sooner. The Tribunal cannot consider evidence unless the other party has been given the opportunity to review and respond. Failing to do so would be a breach of the natural principles of justice. The request was therefore declined. Tenant’s claims Has the landlord had failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards relating to insulation, ventilation, heating, moisture ingress, and draught stopping,
Under section 45(1) (bb) of the Act, the landlord must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) which set out minimum standards for insulation, smoke alarms, heating, ventilation, moisture ingress drainage, and draft stopping.
The standards relating to insulation and smoke alarms were in effect before the start of the tenancy, those relating to the others, for this tenancy, came into effect for this tenancy on 19 March 2024 Evidence
The tenant stated that there was no ceiling insulation. The underfloor insulation consisted of building paper which was missing in a section near the front door of the cabin. The tenant also stated that the bathroom had an opening window and following the Tribunals finding that the parties had entered a residential tenancy agreement, the landlord had installed an extractor fan. A smoke alarm was located in the main living room which doubles as the bedroom. The tenant stated that no form of heating was provided by the landlord, and from the commencement of the tenancy they had relied on their own portable heat pump unit. The landlord had offered to install heating, but the tenant declined. The tenant further stated there were unacceptable gaps in the floor allowing drafts, and that the cabin suffered from moisture and dampness issues, and that there were areas that could not be properly cleaned and contained black mould.
The landlord stated that no HHS compliance statement nor HHS assessment had been completed. The landlord stated at the time of agreeing to let the tenant occupy the cabin, they were unaware that they would be entering into a residential tenancy agreement. The landlord stated that the roof construction prevented ceiling insulation from being installed without removing the ceiling, which would involve significant building work. A letter from a contractor confirming this was produced. The landlord stated despite there being limited crawl space under the cabin they had recently installed insulation. They accepted that a small section of the insulation paper near the door had been missing. The landlord confirmed that they had offered to provide heating but that the tenant had declined. The landlord denied responsibility for gaps in the floor, stating that the tenant’s partner had admitted to using a water blaster to clean the shower, which had caused water damage to the floor which was made from particle board. The landlord stated that the design of the front window by the door created an area that could not be reached for cleaning and that mould had formed. The landlord stated that the affected window was removed for cleaning. Analysis and decision
The photographic evidence provided by the tenant is of poor quality for assessment purposes consisting of close ups only. While there are visible gaps in the floor, it is not possible to determine whether these created a draft issue. I also cannot rule out the tenant’s partner may have contributed to issues with the floor. The construction of the roof more likely than not provides an exemption to the insulation standard. The only photograph showing the cabin sufficient to make an assessment concerning underfloor insulation suggests a limited crawl space, meaning the property was also likely exempt from that standard. The evidence concerning the hard-to-reach area and the alleged mould is unclear, and there appears to be a construction element involved. It does not appear that the tenant was exposed to the mould or harmful substances.
Heating and the ventilation in the bathroom appear to be the only areas where I am satisfied that the landlord has breached the HHS. Under section 45(1A) breaching the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded under section 109(1) and schedule 1A.
Under section 109(3) of the Act, when considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must consider the intent of the person committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, the public interest, and whether it is just to make the award.
In this case, I decline to award exemplary damages. I am not satisfied that the landlord has intentionally breached their obligations under the HHS. Although the Tribunal determined found that the parties had entered into an agreement captured by the provisions of the Act, I accept that the landlord genuinely believed otherwise, and that their contractual relationship with the tenant involved Corrections.
In my view the obligations arising from the landlord’s contractual relationship with the tenant were not fully explained or understood. Further, the Tribunal’s finding on 23 April 2025, the landlord took active steps to address HHS matters including installing an extractor fan in the bathroom. There offer to provide heating was declined by the tenant. Failure to maintain the property.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence.

Has the landlord failed to maintain the floor in a reasonable condition?

The tenant states that the flooring is domestic grade particle board, which was unsealed and therefore unsuitable as flooring material. The tenant stated the lack of insulation and ventilation, combined with excessive moisture ultimately damaged the flooring. They state they had advised the landlord of this on several occasions, but the matter was not addressed.
One of the photographs taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy shows an area of flooring near the bathroom that is significantly damaged.
The landlord stated that shortly after the commencement of the tenancy they had been to the property to inspect the floor and had been told by the tenant’s partner (whom the landlord described as the catalyst in the break down in the tenant / landlord relationship) that they had used a water blaster on the shower unit. The landlord stated that the tenant’s partner had left the unit running which had caused the floor and skirting boards to become saturated. The landlord stated that the tenant had accepted responsibility and had made extra additional payments of $50.00 per week to cover the damage. The landlord stated that they had provided a dehumidifier to dry the property, but the damage had already been done.
The tenant denied their partner had caused the damage as described but accepted that there had been a small flood. The tenant acknowledged that the landlord had provided a dehumidifier, but stated they had removed it because it was too expensive to run. Analysis and decision
The onus is on the tenant to establish that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. The photographs of the floor confirm fair wear and tear relative to the age of the cabin. Particle board is susceptible to swelling and deterioration when exposed to moisture. While the tenant stated that nothing was done, later in the hearing the Tribunal was told that the parties had agreed to install vinyl flooring to protect the floor from further deterioration. I cannot rule out that the tenant’s partner may have contributed to the damage. The claim is dismissed. Should the tenant be reimbursed for improvements made to the deck, water heating system, and by installing vinyl floor,
The issue is whether there was an agreement that the tenant was to be reimbursed for the work, either by payment or in lieu of rent, or whether the work completed by the tenant has added value to the property benefitting the landlord at the tenant’s expense. Evidence
The tenant states that during the tenancy they extended a deck at the front of the cabin to make the cabin more liveable. The relationship between the parties was good at the time. The tenant states they purchased the materials and the landlord helped with construction. There was no discussion about compensation or whether the tenant’s contribution toward the cost of the deck was to be in lieu of rent.
The landlord states that the tenant purchased the decking timber, and they purchased the balance of the materials, estimating the contribution as approximately 50/50. The landlord considered the deck was adequate, though they accepted that the extension may have provided a small improvement. The landlord confirmed there was no discussion that the materials or labour provided by the tenant would be in lieu of rent.
The tenant stated that, due to the issues with the particle board floor, the parties agreed to install some vinyl flooring. The tenant stated that they purchased the vinyl flooring for $300.00 and then agreed to share the installation costs equally. The tenant stated the total cost was $1,260.00, paid in cash, with the tenant contributing $860.00 and the landlord $700.00.
The landlord stated that the parties agreed to put down vinyl to repair the water damage caused by the tenant’s partner. The landlord stated that they engaged an installer who persuaded each party separately to make payments but did not complete the work. The landlord stated the tenant had told him that the vinyl was free. The tenant stated that the particle board under the vinyl continued to deteriorate, causing the vinyl to crack. The landlord questioned the standard of work and suggested that both parties had been let down by the installer.
The tenant stated that the cabin had a 25-litre hot water cylinder, which was too small. The tenant proposed installing a Califont gas water heater, and the landlord agreed. Around October 2024, the tenant purchased the Califont system and had it installed at a cost of $1,500.00. Although the landlord agreed to contribute to the installation, they did not. The tenant stated it was agreed that once installed, the system would belong to the landlord, and the tenant would supply the gas bottles. As the rent included electricity the tenant anticipated that the rent would be reduced accordingly. However, a comparison showed no change in usage. Because both parties shared the same supplier a comparison was not possible. The tenant also stated that the landlord had increased their power usage.
The tenant has produced a calculation estimating that heating 65 litres of water daily to 80 degrees Celsius with a 25-litre cylinder and electricity priced at $0.30 per kWh cost approximately $53 a month, rounded to $10.00 per week.
The landlord stated the tenant had obtained a quote from a registered plumber to install the system for $800.00. The landlord stated the tenant had then advised that another installer would be used. After the end of the tenancy the landlord had the system inspected by a registered plumber who confirmed that it had not been installed properly or by someone qualified. The landlord produced an email statement from the plumber. The landlord stated that the tenant was welcome to collect the system, as it was of no value. The landlord accepted that they agreed in principle to reduce the rent, but only if the electricity usage decreased. The landlord stated there had been no discernible reduction. The landlord stated it was impossible to make a comparison because both parties shared the same supply with too many variables. The landlord produced their own calculations reaching a different conclusion. The landlord stated that both parties firmly believed they were correct hindered settling the matter.
The tenant claims that all up they had spent about $4,000.00 on improvements, with the landlord contributing about $700.00. The tenant submits that the improvements added value to the property, which would benefit the landlord at the tenant’s expense. Apart from the deck, the landlord questions whether any of the other works added any value. Analysis and decision
The issues are whether there was an agreement that the tenant was to be reimbursed for the work either by payment or in lieu of rent, or whether the work completed by the tenant has added value to the property benefitting the landlord at the tenant’s expense.
Both parties accepted that when the deck was extended, vinyl flooring installed, and the Califont fitted, there was no agreement that the tenant would be reimbursed, or the tenant’s contribution would be in lieu of rent. A party cannot retrospectively impose obligation on the other unless there was an express or implied agreement at the material time.
There is a common law principle called unjust enrichment whereby, unless there is an agreement that allows it, one party should not be allowed to benefit unfairly at another party’s expense.
While the deck extension may have added some ongoing value to the property, the same cannot be said for the vinyl flooring or Califont, which do not appear to have benefited the landlord at the tenant’s expense.
The tenant has provided a bank statement confirming they spent $500.00 on the decking timber.
Section 85 of the Act states the Tribunal should look to a fair resolution of the dispute, considering substantial merits and justice, rather than strict legal rights and technicalities. I award the tenant $400.00 in recognition of their contribution to the deck.
Dealing with the claim that the rent should be reduced due to the installation of the Califont system. There was no clear agreement that rent would be varied, and any reduction was contingent on there being measurable savings, of which there was none. However, I accept that the tenants running the system at their own expense must have reduced their electricity consumption. I also accept that it is difficult to quantify. In the interests of fairness, I award the tenant $400.00. Has the landlord interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, amounting to harassment.
Section 38(2) of the Act states that a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
The common law covenant for quiet enjoyment was set out in the case of Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499 (CA) in which Pearson LJ stated at 511: The implied covenant for quiet enjoyment is not an absolute covenant protecting a tenant against eviction or interference by anybody but is a qualified covenant protecting the tenant against interference with the tenant’s quiet and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises by the landlord or persons claiming through or under the landlord. The basis of it is that the landlord, by letting the premises, confers on the tenant the right of possession during the term and impliedly promises not to interfere with the tenant’s exercise and use of the right of possession during the term. I think the word ‘enjoy’ used in this connection is a translation from the Latin word ‘fruor’ and refers to the exercise and use of the right and having the full benefit of it, rather than to derive pleasure from it.
In Lucas v Patterson [2005] DCR 76 the Court considered that the common law convent, enshrined by section 38(1) of the Act, had been widened in section 38(2) with the inclusion of references to peace, comfort, and privacy.
In Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated, “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents”.
An interference that also amounts to harassment is an unlawful act for which under section 109 of the Act exemplary damages of up to $3,000.00 may be awarded.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". See MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The question as to whether a tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy has been significantly impacted by the actions of the landlord will involve an objective assessment of the facts. Evidence
The tenant states that when they asked the landlord whether they were aware of the HHS standards, the landlord responded by issuing a two week notice to leave the cabin by 07 February 2025. This was later extended to 07 March 2025. The tenant stated that their home detention sentence ended in June 2025, and the landlord knew that without accommodation they risked being returned to prison. The tenant stated that the landlord made comments about him going back to prison and had contacted his probation officer, which unsurprisingly caused anxiety and stress.
The landlord stated that he had been asked by a friend to offer the tenant accommodation for em-bail and then home detention. The landlord stated that on their own the tenant was a good tenant, however their relationship changed when the tenant’s partner moved in. The landlord stated that there were constant arguments, and because the cabin was so close to their house it caused considerable disturbance and stress. The landlord could not resolve the matter and sort legal advice and was told that the tenant had a licence to occupy, which could be revoked. The landlord agreed that they had contacted Corrections, but denied confronting the tenant, stating that the tenant had CCTV cameras and any such exchange would have been captured. Analysis and decision
The landlord has conducted themselves in a manner that interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. This interference resulted in a loss of amenity, depriving the tenant peace, comfort, and privacy for which they were paying rent for. I award the tenant compensation of $500.00. However, I am not satisfied that the breach amounts to harassment. Landlord’s claims

Does the tenant owe rent arrears to the end of the tenancy?

The rent summary is not in the usual form presented to the Tribunal and simply records payments made. The parties state that the summary did not record services in lieu of rent. The tenant stated that they had completed an IT project for the landlord, who agreed in return to reduce the rent by half for each week spent on the project. The agreement is not in writing. The landlord accepted that the rent had been reduced to $125.00 for 6 weeks but stated that the project was not completed. The summary recorded all of the payments made by the tenant. Analysis and decision
There appears to be no dispute that the tenant has not paid any rent from 10 April 2025 to the end of the tenancy on 17 July 2025. At $200.00 per week this equates to $2,800.00. Is the tenant liable for damage to a screen door and the floor.
The landlord claims that the tenant has damaged the floor and a screen door.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
The landlord has produced a photograph of a screen door which they claim has paint splatters caused by the tenant’s partner leaning paintings against it. The landlord states that the screen door was new at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has produced a quote to replace the door for $769.35, of which they sought half.
The landlord has produced a quote from a contractor to replace the floor for $3,638.00, again seeking half. In the quote the contractor states that they believed the damage is from an internal source.
The tenant stated that the screen door was not new at the start of the tenancy because if it were there would have been a key, and there was not. They stated that the door did not fit properly, was warped, and already had paint on it.
The flooring issue has already been discussed in relation to the tenant’s claim that the landlord had failed to meet their obligations. The landlord maintains that the tenant was responsible. Analysis and decision
There is no pre tenancy checklist and no photographs showing the condition of areas concerned at the commencement of the tenancy. Without these, I am unable to make an independent and objective assessment. The claims are dismissed. Costs
The Tribunal has the discretion to award a partly successful party reimbursement of their filing fee. Both parties seek reimbursement of their respective filing fees. Arguably both have been partly successful triggering the Tribunal’s discretion to order reimbursement of the filing fee. However, as reimbursing the filing fee to one would effectively cancel reimbursement to the other, and vice versa, I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression.
The tenant seeks name suppression. The landlord does not.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been substantially successful and is granted named suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146649 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146649 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to maintain the floor in a reasonable condition?

Does the tenant owe rent arrears to the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to maintain the floor in a reasonable condition?

Does the tenant owe rent arrears to the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions