What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5159772 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 5159772?

Compensation: Emotional Stress: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement: Second plumber callou…: $54.63 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,602.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,072.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5159772?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5159772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11680705-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5159772 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 5159772?

Compensation: Emotional Stress: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement: Second plumber callou…: $54.63 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,602.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,072.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5159772?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5159772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11680705-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5159772 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5159772 — net $1,479.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,602.14		Rent arrears
Water rates	$1,072.95		Water rates
Reimbursement: Second plumber callout cost	$54.63		Reimbursement: Second plumber callout cost
Compensation: Emotional stress		$500.00	Emotional stress
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$750.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$2,729.72	$1,250.00
Net award	$1,479.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,479.72

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5159772 — net $1,479.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,602.14		Rent arrears
Water rates	$1,072.95		Water rates
Reimbursement: Second plumber callout cost	$54.63		Reimbursement: Second plumber callout cost
Compensation: Emotional stress		$500.00	Emotional stress
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$750.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$2,729.72	$1,250.00
Net award	$1,479.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,479.72

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 Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,479.72 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Mackys Real Estate Limited immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.28 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was held on 31 March 2025.
Ms. Lawson attended the hearing as the landlord's representative. Ms. Beukes assisted her during the hearing.
[Tenant 1] attended the hearing. [Support Person] was the support person.
The other tenant, [Tenant 2], did not attend the hearing due to medical reasons. [Tenant 1] is [Tenant 2]’s mother. It appeared [Tenant 1] had been the primary contact with Ms Lawson. On that basis, the hearing proceeded in [Tenant 2]’s absence.
Since [Tenant 2] did not attend the hearing, I will refer to [Tenant 1] as [The tenant/s] for the remainder of this decision. Further evidence filed
At the end of the hearing, I told the parties they could file supporting documents or evidence by 5 pm 1 April 2025. I also said: “No extensions will be granted. Evidence filed late may be excluded from consideration."
For Ms. Lawson: a. Proof of work orders or maintenance requests logged before July 2024. b. Confirmation from the owners about direct repairs they may have authorised. c. Ms Lawson submitted an electrical invoice (dated 29 January 2024) and a pre-tenancy inspection report (dated 6 March 2023).
For [The tenant/s]: a. Vast additional emails. Most of them are not relevant to the issues I need to adjudicate. b. [The tenant/s] has laid out an extensive list of grievances related to their tenancies at two properties, [Previous tendency address] (previous tenancy) and [tenancy address suppressed] (tenancy issues before me). Her primary complaints involve lack of maintenance, unsafe living conditions, financial exploitation, health issues caused by the properties, and mistreatment by property management. Introduction
This hearing concerns a dispute regarding tenancy issues at the property located at [tenancy address suppressed].
Landlord’s claims: a. Outstanding rent of $1,602.14. b. Unpaid water charges totalling $1,177.90. c. Two callout costs for plumbers amounting to $109.25.
[The tenant/s]’s claims (listed in the application): a. Allegation of a retaliatory notice to vacate. b. Failure by the landlord to maintain the property (leaking issue). c. Breach of quiet enjoyment.
The tenant also raised concerns about theft of funds and extortion in the application. These complaints fall outside my jurisdiction and will not be addressed.
[The tenant/s]’s additional claims (raised in the hearing, not in the application): a. No entry inspection was conducted. She never received a formal walk- through at the start of the tenancy, and months later, one still had not been completed. b. Cat issue: She agreed to take the property partly because they were told it "came with a cat" left behind by previous tenants. This became two elderly cats (both aged 15). One died, and the other had severe toileting issues indoors, causing emotional stress and extra cleaning. c. The house was unsanitary, with cat urine and faeces, and she had to scrub the carpet constantly from the beginning. d. HRV system: Installed but not functional. She was promised it would be connected by winter 2024. As of early 2025, it still had not been addressed despite repeated requests. e. Mould problems throughout: i. Mould on bedroom wardrobes, carpets, curtains, and garage roof. ii. Belongings, including pillows, went mouldy. iii. Forced to re-pack items into plastic bags to protect them. f. Structural/Electrical faults: i. Dishwasher only partially worked. ii. Heated towel rails were broken. iii. External gate was broken and unsafe. iv. Guttering was clogged and tiles cracked, contributing to leaks and dampness. v. Flickering lights, causing concern about electrical safety. Appliances such as heat pads and frying pans had reportedly blown due to electrical faults. vi. A dangerous ensuite plug was hanging off the wall near the shower, left that way for close to a year. vii. No access to a functioning wardrobe due to mould. g. Financial & Emotional Impact i. Rent was allegedly raised multiple times during the lease negotiation process ($700 → $730 → $750). She felt unfair to her. ii. She was told she had to accept the house "as is", despite its many issues, while still paying $750 per week. iii. She has since developed fibromyalgia and chronic illness, which her doctor reportedly attributes to prolonged exposure to mould and stress from the tenancy. iv. The stress and living conditions have left her unable to work, with ongoing financial and health consequences.
I will address the landlord’s application first, followed by [The tenant/s]’s complaints listed in the application.
I will not address [The tenant/s]’s additional complaints raised during the hearing for two reasons: a. The landlord did not have the opportunity to prepare a response. b. The evidence [The tenant/s] submitted appeared insufficient to support the claims. In fairness to [The tenant/s], she must prepare her case properly. It was not appropriate to raise further issues during the hearing.
If it helps, I have summarised [The tenant/s]’s additional issues raised during the hearing (see paragraph 13). It is up to [The tenant/s] how she wishes to proceed with these additional issues. Standard of proof
The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: ... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 8 March 2023 and ended on 11 December 2024.
[The tenant/s]’s final rent payment was $5 on 22 November 2024, despite the tenancy ending on 11 December 2024. The total owing is $1,602.14.
[The tenant/s] argued she had paid two weeks in advance at the start of the tenancy (March 2023) and was entitled to a "free week" at the end.
[The tenant/s] claimed the landlord incorrectly demanded four weeks' rent upon vacating, while she only owed two weeks (which she offered to deduct from the bond).
The landlord provided rent records that clearly record when and how much rent was received. [The tenant/s] did not support her claim with evidence that the landlord improperly demanded four weeks’ rent upon vacating.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] owed the landlord rent of $1,602.14.

How much is owed for water rates?

Background

The landlord claims $1,177.90 in unpaid water invoices. [The tenant/s] disputes this amount, arguing that: a. Undiagnosed leaks caused excessive water usage, which the landlord failed to address promptly. b. She attempted to apply for a [rebate] but was denied due to no authorisation from the landlord. c. The water bills at her new residence (averaging $40 – $50/month) prove the property’s water consumption was abnormally high due to leaks.
In other words, [The tenant/s] disputes the water consumption was exclusively attributable to her occupation of the premises. See section 39(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The landlord’s submissions
Ms. Lawson did not dispute that [The tenant/s] reported the water leakage issue to her. However, Ms Lawson argued: "The leaks were minor and fixed promptly. The tenant chose to withhold payment without justification and must pay the full $1,177.90 owed."
Ms Lawson submitted two invoices (5 July 2024 and 22 October 2024), and a plumber’s report (undated) to support the leaks were investigated and remedied.
From the plumber’s report and invoices submitted, it appeared initially that leaks had been detected at the property. These issues were primarily related to aging plumbing infrastructure, such as old valves and water cylinder leaks.
Specific findings included: a. A potential watermain leak was noted; however, it was difficult to pinpoint whether it was inside or outside due to a non-functional isolation valve. b. Multiple potential causes of leakage were found inside the house, particularly from old valves on the water cylinders that were dripping continuously. c. Recommendations were made to replace the isolation valve and further investigate where the leak was occurring.
The remedial works included: a. Replacing various parts such as the shower diverter mixer, the toilet buttons and stalks, and installing new taps. b. After these replacements, all systems were tested and reported as functioning properly. There was no evidence of watermain leak.
Were there leaks during the tenancy? Yes, there were.
My finding that there were leaks during the tenancy did not equal a watermain burst or a major leak from a pipe.
Similarly, continuously dripping from two cylinders in the house for months is also unacceptable.
Accordingly, I do not accept Ms Lawson’s submissions that the leaks were “minor”.

How much is owed?

No one knows how much water was wasted due to leaks. Section 39(3) of the RTA clearly states that [The tenant/s] are responsible for the water consumption exclusively attributable to her occupation of the premises. There was no evidence before me to suggest any other faults apart from leaks. Whether the leaks allegedly contributed to the higher water bills remains unknown.
In her evidence, [The tenant/s] reported water leakage issues to the landlord in March 2023. She believed the leaks caused higher-than-usual water bills.
Was [The tenant/s]’s water consumption higher than usual? From October 2023 to December 2024 (tenancy period), the invoices from [water company] record the following (water and wastewater consumption only, no wastewater fixed charges): a. 17 March 2023 – $41.09 b. 17 April 2023 – $79.24 c. 16 May 2023 – $181.30 d. 15 June 2023 – $120.86 e. 21 July 2023 – $133.84 f. 15 August 2023 – $108.73 g. 18 September 2023 – $52.01 (the account was in credit because the actual consumption is lower than the estimate) h. 13 October 2023 – $80.34 i. 16 November 2023 – $122.90 j. 13 December 2023 – $94.53 k. 17 January 2024 – $99.24 l. 15 February 2024 – $99.24 m. 15 March 2024 – $118.15 n. 15 April 2024 – $122.90 o. 17 May 2024 – $85.08 p. 17 June 2024 – $108.73 q. 16 July 2024 – $99.24 r. 15 August 2024 – $126.65 s. 16 September 2024 – $116.56 t. 15 October 2024 – $131.74 u. 15 November 2024 – $81.07 v. 13 December 2024 – $106.38
The evidence showed that a plumber visited the property on 4 July 2024, 14 October 2024, and 21 October 2024. The leaks were identified and repaired on 21 October 2024. [The tenant/s] received the following water bill (dated 15 November 2024): $81.07. However, the water bill increased to $106.38 for the following month.
After reviewing all water bills for the entire tenancy, I find it difficult to accept that there were major leaks during this period. In fact, [The tenant/s] did not assert that there had been significant leaks. She did not dispute the plumber’s replacement of various parts, such as the shower diverter mixer, hose taps, shower hose, toilet buttons, and old valves with new ones.
In her evidence, [The tenant/s] stated that her water bills at her new residence were between $40 and $50 per month. During the hearing, she suggested using this as the benchmark.
In my view, using [The tenant/s]’s current water consumption at the new property as a benchmark would be inappropriate, as factors other than leaks could influence water consumption. [The tenant/s] did not submit evidence to suggest that the water metre reading is incorrect or faulty.
The evidence is that the plumber identified leaks in July 2024 and fixed them in October 2024. Therefore, I will use the November 2024 water bill of $81.07 as the benchmark and adjust the water bills from August 2024 to October 2024 to $90 each. I consider $90 a reasonable amount, accounting for higher consumption that may not necessarily have been due to leaks.
I also consider it inappropriate to apply an adjusted amount to the invoices from March 2023 to July 2024 because there is no evidence of any other fault except for dripping. There is no evidence to demonstrate the severity of the leaks. Applying the adjusted amount to the March 2023 to July 2024 invoices would be speculative.
Accordingly, I reduce the landlord’s claim for water bills by $104.95 from $1,177.90 to $1,072.95. The landlord seeks compensation for callout costs for plumbers
Ms. Lawson seeks compensation of $109.25 for plumber callout costs incurred during two separate visits in June 2024. She argues these charges resulted from the tenant, [The tenant/s], unreasonably refusing access to the property for necessary plumbing inspections.
In Ms Lawson’s evidence, the first visit on 6 June 2024 was aborted when [The tenant/s] had to go out and did not give the plumber permission to enter the premises, while the second attempt on 24 June 2024 (Monday) failed because [The tenant/s] was adamant that she was not notified about the visit. [The tenant/s] believed the appointment was for 27 June 2024 (Thursday). Ms Lawson said the plumber recorded that the appointment was made on 10 June 2024.
Ms. Lawson emphasises that both visits were classified as callouts under the tenancy agreement (see below), which makes the tenant liable for costs when access is denied without proper justification. Ms. Lawson submitted supporting documentation, including invoices from [the plumber] detailing the charges and referencing [The tenant/s]’s refusal as the reason for non-attendance.
In response, [The tenant/s] strongly contests these claims, providing a detailed account of both incidents. For the first visit, she explained the plumber arrived 90 minutes late for their scheduled 10:00 AM appointment, by which time she had to leave for a medical appointment. Regarding the second visit, [The tenant/s] states the plumber arrived without any prior notice, simply stating they were "in the area," while she was on medically-ordered bed rest. She maintains that she acted reasonably under the circumstances. [The tenant/s] said she made a complaint to Ms. Lawson about the lack of proper notice for these visits.
Clause 12 of the tenancy agreement states: Callout Charge – The Tenant agrees to pay any reasonable callout charge If: • The Tenant does not adhere to prior arrangement for entry • Where no fault is found • The repairs are due to damage or negligence by the tenant. Where the tenant requires the landlord's agent to instruct a contractor to attend the tenancy premises to conduct some work and if the agent does instruct a contractor to attend the tenancy premises and the contractor cannot gain entry because of the tenants default or does gain entry but cannot find any fault or does complete work which can be attributed to the tenants negligence, then the reasonable cost of the contractor may be charged to the tenant. Should [The tenant/s] pay the callout charges? The first visit - 6 June 2024
The plumber was unable to enter because he was running about 30 minutes late. [The tenant/s] needed to leave for her medical appointment and did not grant the plumber permission to access the premises.
[The tenant/s]’s evidence is inconsistent with the plumber’s notes. She stated that the plumber was 90 minutes late, while the plumber recorded that he was approximately 30 minutes behind schedule.
I am not concerned with when the plumber arrived, whether it was 30 minutes late or 90 minutes late because he recorded that he was behind schedule.
I understand that it may be challenging for tradespeople to arrive exactly on time for the appointment. There could be various reasons for the delay.
However, on 6 June 2024, [The tenant/s] adhered to the appointment. That is all she needed to do.
It would not be reasonable for [The tenant/s] to cover this callout cost. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for the callout cost on 6 June 2024 is dismissed. The second visit - 24 June 2024
[The tenant/s] disputed that an appointment had been scheduled for 24 June 2024 and maintained that no such appointment existed. She stated that she would have permitted entry but was unwell on that date.
The plumber’s notes indicated that [The tenant/s] believed the appointment was scheduled for 27 June 2024 rather than 24 June 2024. However, the office records documented that an administrative staff member had spoken with [The tenant/s] on 10 June 2024 and confirmed the appointment for 24 June 2024.
[The tenant/s] submitted a medical certificate pertaining to her daughter to support her claim that she was unwell when the plumber visited on 24 June 2024. Two key details emerged from the medical certificate: a. The certificate was dated 10 June 2024 and stated that [The tenant/s]’s daughter was suffering from a medical illness. b. It also indicated that her daughter should be excused from rental obligations for two weeks—meaning the exemption period ended on 23 June 2024.
There may have been some confusion in [The tenant/s]’s evidence, as she appeared to suggest that she was unwell, whereas the medical certificate pertained to her daughter. This discrepancy raises questions about whether her inability to allow entry was justified.
The plumber’s office records confirmed that [The tenant/s] had agreed to the appointment on 10 June 2024, scheduling the visit for 24 June 2024—one day after the two-week medical exemption for her daughter expired.
After assessing [The tenant/s]’s evidence that she believed the appointment was for 27 June 2024, I found her evidence unreliable. It is more likely than not that she had, in fact, confirmed 24 June 2024 as the appointment date with the plumber’s office. This date was suitable because the medical certificate covered her daughter’s condition only until 23 June 2024.
[The tenant/s] most likely did not recall the correct appointment date rather than being intentionally misleading.
Accordingly, it is reasonable for [The tenant/s] to reimburse the landlord for the callout cost of $54.63 incurred on 24 June 2024, as the missed appointment was due to her oversight rather than a valid refusal of entry.
I will now address Ms. Lawson’s application. a. Allegation of a retaliatory notice to vacate. b. Failure by the landlord to maintain the property with various complaints. c. Breach of quiet enjoyment.

Was the 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy retaliatory?

On 4 November 2024, Ms. Lawson gave [The tenant/s] a notice to terminate the tenancy effective 2 February 2025 because the property owner intended to list the property for sale. [The tenant/s] claims that the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s] submitted: a. The 90-day notice was issued on 4 November 2024, just two days after an [heatpump] technician assessed the system (2 November 2024) and advised it required a full replacement. b. The landlord has a history of ignoring maintenance requests. For instance, plumbing repairs are delayed for more than 12 months. c. The owner’s decision to sell was sudden, with no prior indication of selling the property.
Ms Lawson submitted: a. The notice was given solely because the owner decided to sell the property as part of their retirement plans. b. The timing (two days post-[heatpump] assessment) was coincidental, as the owner had already begun preparing for sale in October 2024. c. None of the maintenance requests had anything to do with owner’s retirement plans. d. The property was listed for auction on 20 February 2025 and sold under the hammer successfully. My view
Ms Lawson issued the notice to terminate the tenancy lawfully under section 51(2) of the RTA.
The tenancy was terminated on 11 December 2024, and the property was sold under the hammer on 20 February 2025.
The evidence before me clearly shows that the notice to terminate was not retaliatory because the owner planned to sell the property as part of their retirement plans, and the property was sold under the hammer on 20 February 2025.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that [The tenant/s] has discharged her burden of proof. [The tenant/s]’s claim under this heading is dismissed. Maintenance issue – plumbing leaks
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s] alleged that the landlord failed to keep the premises in a reasonable state of repair, specifically mentioning the delay in addressing plumbing leaks. [The tenant/s]’s submissions
[The tenant/s] submitted that the landlord ignored her complaint about leaks for over 12 months. As a result, she had to pay inflated water bills and felt stressed about the landlord ignoring her request to address the leaking issue.
She first raised the leaking issue with the landlord shortly after moving into the property, around March 2023. She made it clear from the outset that there were problems with the plumbing and requested a plumber early on. [The tenant/s] mentioned in an email dated 4 November 2024 that they had been asking for a plumber “basically since moving in.” In an email dated 4 November 2024, [The tenant/s] wrote “We have requested a plumber basically since moving in in March 2023...”.
In a separate message dated 30 August 2024, [Tenant 2] wrote: “We requested a plumber over a year ago, finally getting one over a month ago”. Ms Lawson’s submissions
Ms. Lawson submitted that the property management changed from [the previous property manager] to her. She assumed property management in July 2024 after [the previous property manager] left the company.
Ms. Lawson submitted that the landlord first addressed the plumbing issue on 6 June 2024 (although no entry was made because [The tenant/s] had to attend a medical appointment after the plumber arrived about 30 minutes behind schedule) three days after the complaint was made. The leaks were resolved by 21 October 2024. She argued that the landlord attended to the maintenance issue promptly. Analysis
The issue here is whether the landlord addressed the maintenance issue promptly. It is not about whether [The tenant/s] had to pay inflated water bills, which I addressed earlier in this decision.
There is no evidence that the landlord raised a work order to address the plumbing leak issue before Ms Lawson started managing the property.
In my view, the landlord did not attend to the leaks promptly. While it took time for the plumber to identify and address all the leaks, there was no good reason why instructing a plumber would take more than 12 months.
Accordingly, on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the landlord did not maintain the plumbing issues promptly.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I find that a $500 compensation for emotional distress is appropriate.
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) RTA.

Is awarding exemplary damage appropriate?

The property is managed by a professional property management company. Yet, the landlord has provided no evidence to confirm whether any work order was raised before Ms Lawson took over management from [the previous property manager].
There was a 15-month delay in addressing the plumbing leaks between March 2023 and June 2024.
The impact on [The tenant/s] is demonstrated in her emails to the landlord.
While there was no evidence of a major leak, the plumber confirmed that leaks were present.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that in these circumstances, and to deter other landlords from committing the same, it is appropriate to award exemplary damages of $750 against the landlord (calculated at $50 per month for 16 months). Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
[The tenant/s]’s primary submissions to support the claim that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment is that of unannounced or poorly scheduled plumber visits.
I have addressed the same issue from paragraphs 53 to 66 above, and I do not propose to do the same again.
It suffices to say that the landlord did not breach [The tenant/s]’s quiet enjoyment, as she was aware that the plumber was coming to attend to a job on-site.
Accordingly, [The tenant/s]’s claim under this heading is dismissed. Filing fee
Both parties have achieved partial success in their respective applications. The cost will lie where it falls. Name suppression
I must grant [The respondent/s] their name suppression application because they substantially succeeded in the proceedings.
Accordingly, the names of [The respondent/s] and identifying particulars are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5159772 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5159772 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

How much is owed?

Was the 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy retaliatory?

Is awarding exemplary damage appropriate?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

How much is owed?

Was the 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy retaliatory?

Is awarding exemplary damage appropriate?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions