What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5165311 about?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Limited Highland Park As Agent For Kim, [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $925.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

How much money was awarded in case 5165311?

Compensation: Failure to maintain ba…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain ca…: $280.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain le…: $65.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain sh…: $180.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain to…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain to…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5165311?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5165311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12402092-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5165311 about?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Limited Highland Park As Agent For Kim, [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $925.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

How much money was awarded in case 5165311?

Compensation: Failure to maintain ba…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain ca…: $280.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain le…: $65.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain sh…: $180.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain to…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain to…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5165311?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5165311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12402092-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

35 Hutchinsons Road, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5165311 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

35 Hutchinsons Road, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5165311 — State of repair | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5165311 — net $925.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness (firewood	$100.00	154. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Compensation: Failure to maintain backdoor lock	$100.00	154. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Compensation: Failure to maintain showerhead	$180.00	Failure to maintain showerhead
Compensation: Failure to maintain carpet	$280.00	Failure to maintain carpet
Compensation: Failure to maintain toilet cistern	$100.00	154. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Compensation: Failure to maintain letterbox	$65.00	Failure to maintain letterbox
Compensation: Failure to maintain toilet pipe	$100.00	154. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Net award	$925.00
Bond	$2,280.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$925.00

Claims and awards for application 5165311 — net $925.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Failure to provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness (firewood

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 154. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.

Compensation: Failure to maintain backdoor lock

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 154. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.

Compensation: Failure to maintain showerhead

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain showerhead

Compensation: Failure to maintain carpet

Amount: $280.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain carpet

Compensation: Failure to maintain toilet cistern

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Tenant

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — TENANT’S CLAIMS Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness? The law
Healthy Homes Standards — Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? The law
Property Damage — Carpet Evidence and submissions of the parties

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Cleanliness Property damage

Order

Barfoot & Thompson Limited Highland Park As Agent For Kim, [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $925.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (5903210-001) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which took place over three days.
The tenancy began on 12 March 2021 and ended on 4 May 2025. The tenant claims the premises were not clean and tidy condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant also claims there were numerous maintenance issues that the landlord either failed to remedy or took too long to fix. Further, the tenant claims the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards and that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment by various means, including assaulting them with an oven door. On 3 February 2025, the landlord sent the tenant a notice terminating the tenancy. The tenant claims this termination notice was sent in response to 14-day notices the tenant sent the landlord. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord denies the tenant’s claims and asks the Tribunal to strike out these proceedings.
The issues I must determine are: a. Should the Tribunal strike out the tenant’s claims? b. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards? c. Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness? d. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? e. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? f. Is the termination notice retaliatory? Standard of proof
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
A lot of evidence and submissions were given at the hearing. Whilst this decision might not refer to all of it, the parties can be assured that I have considered it in reaching my decision. Compensation and exemplary damages: the law generally
The Tribunal may award compensation for losses arising from proven breaches of the tenancy agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 1 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages.
The usual approach of the Tribunal is to award one third of the maximum of exemplary damages unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 2 LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Should the Tribunal strike out these proceedings?

The law

The Tribunal may strike out, in whole or in part, a proceeding if satisfied that it: 3 a. Discloses no reasonable cause of action; or b. Is likely to prejudice or delay; or c. Is frivolous or vexatious; or d. Is otherwise an abuse of process.
The Tribunal exercises the power to strike out with great caution. This is because it involves depriving a party of accessibility to justice. There are few cases that will reach the threshold for strike out. 4
A claim discloses no reasonable cause of action if it so clearly untenable that it cannot succeed. 5 Examples include: 1 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 2 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 92A. 4 Scanlan v The Good Girls Property Management Limited, TT 4329138, 12 May 2022. 5 R Lucas & Son (Nelson Mail) Ltd v O’Brien [1978] 2 NZLR 289 (CA); Gartside v Sheffield, Young & Ellis [1983] NZLR 37 (CA). a. Where the claim is filed more than 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based. 6 b. Claims that fall outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. For example, disputes between tenants or between owners and property managers. c. Claims that ask for a remedy the Tribunal cannot give. For example, a tenant may ask the Tribunal to order the landlord to transfer them to another rental property owned by the landlord. This is not a remedy the Tribunal can award.
Examples of claims that are likely to cause prejudice or delay are those that are ill formed or where the applicant states that they will add further claims before the hearing.
In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, the Court of Appeal held that “a frivolous pleading is one which trifles with the court’s processes, whereas a vexatious one contains an element of impropriety.”
The Tribunal has described frivolous as meaning something “trifling, futile, not serious, silly.” It has described vexatious as meaning “not having sufficient grounds for action and seeking only to annoy, an action merely brought for the sake of annoyance or oppression.” 7
An abuse of process has been described as: 8 ...court proceedings may not be used or threatened for the purpose of obtaining for the person so using or threatening them some collateral advantage to himself, and not for the purpose for which such proceedings are properly designed and exist; and a party so using or threatening proceedings will be liable to be held guilty of abusing the process of the court and therefore disqualified from invoking the powers of the court proceedings he has abused.
Common examples of an abuse of process are: 9 a. Where a party seeks to reopen a dispute that has already been determined; or b. Where a party has failed to bring forward their whole case the first time and tries to reopen the same subject under a different heading. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 section 77(1) and Limitation Act 2010, section 11. 7 Wooton v Tavita TT 2069/92 8 January 1993. 8 In Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509 (HCA) at 528 and 536 the High Court of Australia adopted this statement of the principle by the English Court of Appeal in In re Majory [1955] CH 600 (CA) at 623 – 624. 9 Craig v Stringer [2020] NZCA 260 [26 June 2020] at [16] – [19]. Analysis
The tenant’s claim discloses a reasonable cause of action. It has been filed within time. The tenancy is one that falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and is not excluded under section 5 RTA. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages, which are remedies the Tribunal can order.
The tenant’s claim is not likely to cause prejudice or delay. A case conference was held on 10 March 2025 and the tenant clarified their claims. The landlord has been able to properly prepare a response and the tenant has not filed any further claims since the case conference. The tenant’s claim is lengthy, but it discloses a reasonable cause of action. Therefore, the likely delay in hearing the proceeding is justified.
The tenant’s claim is not frivolous or vexatious. Some of the tenant’s claims have merit and there are sufficient grounds for action. Certainly, all of the tenant’s claims are matters the Tribunal can properly adjudicate on. I am convinced the claim is made genuinely and the tenant believes there is a case to answer. I am not convinced the claim is frivolous or vexatious or has been brought with an improper motive.
The application is not an abuse of process. The tenant has not filed any previous proceedings against the landlord. This is not an attempt to reopen a matter that has already been determined.
For these reasons, the landlord’s application to strike out the proceedings is dismissed. TENANT’S CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

The law

The landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 10
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 11 It does not mean commercially clean, 12 spotless 13 or to a hotel or motel standard. 14 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 15 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(a). 11 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 12 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 13 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 14 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6].
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances other than facilities.” 16 Therefore, the obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness relates to the inside and outside of the premises. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises were not reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy for a number of reasons. These include: there was fly excrement on the light fittings, the oven was dirty, the rangehood in the kitchen was dirty, there was mould on the net curtains, there was dust on top of the kitchen cupboards, there was mould in the seals in the bathroom, the gutters were blocked and the lawns had weeds in them.
The tenant also claims that the landlord removed firewood from under the house when the ground moisture barrier was installed but did not organise for its disposal. The tenant claims the firewood remained in a pile on the premises and the tenant had to get rid of it themselves.
The landlord claims the premises were reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims the tenant asked to keep the firewood, which is why they instructed their contractor not to remove it. The landlord claims they should not be responsible for disposing of the firewood when the tenant asked to keep it. Analysis
I find the landlord provided the premises in a reasonably clean condition, with the exception of the pile of firewood that was not removed.
The tenant submitted approximately 22 photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. These are mostly close up photographs of various parts of the house and include: light fittings, the rubber seal in the bathroom shower glass, silicone, walls, gutters and a photograph of a pile of firewood.
The tenant’s photographs show some fly excrement on the light fittings, mould or grime in the rubber seal at the bottom of the shower glass, small dots of mould and some foliage is growing in a gutter outside.
The landlord submitted a copy of the entry inspection report, which contains over 100 photographs. The photographs in the entry report show the premises in a reasonably clean condition. No rubbish or personal belongings are present. The floors have been vacuumed and mopped. The surfaces have been wiped 15 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 16 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. down. The bathroom and kitchen have been cleaned. The inside of the oven is reasonably clean, and the lawns have been freshly mown.
I find the entry inspection report provides a more accurate account of the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy than the tenant’s photographs. This is because the entry report is more thorough. It contains over 100 photographs of the inside and outside of the premises, and includes close-up photographs, as well as those taken at a distance. I am better able to discern the overall state of the premises from the entry inspection report than the handful of close-up photographs submitted by the tenant.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord provided the inside of premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The landlord does not have to provide the premises in an immaculate or pristine condition, only a reasonably clean one. The fact that the seal on the shower glass in the bathroom had a small amount of mould or grim in it does not render the premises unreasonably clean. The same can be said about the presence of dust on top of cupboards and a small amount of foliage growing in a gutter.
The pile of firewood left outside the premises is a different story.
The premises have a fireplace. It is not included as a chattel on the tenancy agreement however, nothing is mentioned about the fact it cannot be used. The landlord only appears to have realised the fireplace could not be used on 20 March 2021 when it failed an inspection. Before this, the landlord organised for under the house to be cleared and a moisture barrier installed.
Various miscellaneous items and firewood were stored under the house. The landlord sent a text message to the property manager, advising that the firewood would be removed and if the tenant wanted to keep it, they would need to store it somewhere else. The landlord gave evidence that the tenant advised that they wanted to keep the firewood and therefore, the landlord asked their contractor not to dispose of it.
The landlord submitted an invoice dated 16 March 2021 from WC Electrical Ltd, which is the company that cleared under the house and installed a moisture barrier.
From this evidence, I find the firewood was removed from the house and stored in a pile outside the premises on 16 March 2021, which is the date of the invoice. At this time, the landlord and tenant both appear to have assumed that the fireplace was usable. I say this because shortly beforehand, the landlord asked the property manager to confirm with the tenant whether they wanted to keep the firewood. Whilst the tenant might have agreed to keep the firewood, this was on the assumption that the fireplace worked. Subsequently, on 20 March 2021, the fireplace failed an inspection and nothing was done to make it compliant. The tenant no longer needed the firewood and the landlord should have organised for its removal in these circumstances.
The firewood was stored in a pile on the outside of the premises on 20 March 2021, which is only 8 days after the tenancy began. By failing to remove it after discovering the fireplace was no longer usable, I find the landlord did not provide this part of the premises in a reasonably clean condition.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. The pile of firewood is relatively large. It must have been a bit of an eye sore to have had something that was useless stored in a pile outside the premises. I accept it was frustrating for the tenant to have had to organise the disposal of the firewood. The tenant gave evidence that a friend to picked it up and the tenant did not incur any cost.
Considering these factors, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $100.00 in compensation.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
All landlords had to comply with the healthy homes standards by 1 July 2025. Prior to this date, different timeframes for compliance applied to different tenancies.
Regulation 2(2) of Schedule 1 of the regulations states that tenancies that: a. Began or were renewed between 1 July 2021 and 28 August 2022 had 90 days to comply. b. Began or were renewed between 28 August 2022 and 3 March 2025 had 120 days to comply. c. Began or were renewed on a different date had until 1 July 2025 to comply. Analysis
The tenancy began on 12 March 2021 and was for a fixed-term ending on 11 March 2022. The fixed-term was not renewed and the tenancy became a periodic tenancy from 12 March 2022. If the fixed-term had been renewed for a further year after 11 March 2022, the landlord would have had to have complied with the healthy homes standards within 90 days however, this did not occur.
The tenancy began on 12 March 2021 and was not renewed between 1 July 2021 and 28 August 2022. Therefore, the landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The tenancy ended on 4 May 2025, which is before 1 July 2025.
The landlord was not required to comply with the healthy homes standards during the timeframe of this tenancy. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord 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.
It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and fix it. 17
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 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. 18 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 19
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 20
The tenant claims the landlord failed to fix numerous issues at the premises. I discuss each issue individually below. Burglar alarm 17 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 18 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 19 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 20 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the burglar alarm never worked, which was a concern to them, because they were previously burgled at their former address.
The landlord claims the burglar alarm has never worked and was intentionally not included as a chattel in the tenancy agreement. Analysis
The burglar alarm is not included as a chattel on the tenancy agreement. There appears to have been a deliberate decision not to include it, because it is listed as one of a number of potential chattels but has not been ticked.
No evidence was given that the landlord represented to the tenant that the premises came with a working burglar alarm. The tenant appears to have assumed this by its presence in the house however, it is not included as a chattel in the tenancy agreement.
A landlord does not have an obligation to maintain a chattel that does not form part of the tenancy. For this reason, this claim is dismissed. Backdoor lock Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims they noticed the backdoor lock was broken within the first 1 – 2 weeks of the tenancy. They claim they mentioned it to the property manager and the owner visited the premises to fix it. The tenant claims the repair was inadequate and the lock kept breaking, which they told the property manager about verbally. The first time the tenant raised the issue in writing was in a 14- day notice dated 15 February 2024. The tenant claims a locksmith fixed the lock between 15 – 27 February 2024.
The landlord denies the tenant ever raised the issue with them or the property manager until January 2024. The landlord claims they visited the premises to fix the lock and the repair was adequate. Notwithstanding this, the tenant continued to complain about the lock. Therefore, the landlord sent a locksmith to replace the lock. The landlord submitted an invoice dated 27 February 2024. Analysis
The landlord denies they were advised about the back door lock being broken early on in the tenancy or that they visited the premises around this time to try to fix it. The tenant has not submitted any evidence to support their claim that this occurred and therefore, I am not convinced it did. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue sometime in January 2024, which is what the landlord said.
The landlord claims that they visited the premises shortly becoming aware the lock was broken and fixed it. The landlord claims the repair was adequate however, I am not convinced it was. This is because the invoice from the locksmith states “replace the faulty back door lock.” It is unlikely the invoice would reference the lock being faulty if there was nothing wrong with it. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the lock was properly fixed on 27 February 2024.
There is a delay of approximately 4 weeks between January 2024 and 27 February 2024. A faulty lock is a security concern and can be fixed relatively quickly. Therefore, I find a delay of 4 weeks unreasonable.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to maintain the backdoor lock in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $25.00 per week to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have had regard to the security risk posed by an entry door into the premises not having a functioning lock. I have also had regard to the fact that the tenant is at home a lot because they do not work. This reduces the security risk.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $100.00. Showerhead Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the showerhead and showerhead holder were broken and would slide down the slide bar of the shower. The tenant claims a rubber band was provided to hold the showerhead and holder in place. Whilst the band prevented the showerhead and holder from sliding down, it was not strong enough to stabilise the shower head when the water was turned on. The tenant claims the showerhead spun as a result.
The tenant claims the landlord visited the premises on one occasion after the rubber band broke and replaced it with a new rubber band. The tenant claims this was not a suitable repair. The tenant also claims the landlord offered to replace the shower head on another occasion, but the pressure on the replacement showerhead was too low. The tenant described the replacement shower head as akin to a baby shower.
The tenant claims they brought the issue up with the property manager verbally a number of times and in writing for the first time on 15 February 2024 in a 14- day notice. The tenant claims the problem was not properly fixed until February 2024, just before the 14-day notice was sent.
The landlord accepts the showerhead holder would slide down the slide bar and was held in place by a rubber band at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims the showerhead was too heavy for the holder and the rubber band was an adequate repair.
The landlord claims they offered to fix the problem approximately 2 – 3 years ago by replacing the showerhead with a lighter showerhead, which the tenant declined. The landlord claims they tried to find a stronger showerhead holder to hold the shower head but were unable to do so. The landlord claims they were only able to find a holder that was strong enough in January 2024, which is when the problem was fixed. Analysis
I find the landlord was aware of the state of disrepair of the showerhead and showerhead holder at the beginning of the tenancy. They gave evidence that they knew about the problem at the beginning of the tenancy. Whether the tenant complained about it or not is irrelevant. A landlord has an obligation to investigate and remedy a defect they are aware of.
The landlord submitted a photograph of the type of showerhead they claim they offered as a replacement. The water is turned on and the pressure appears adequate. The tenant denies this is the type of showerhead that was offered but did not submit any photographs of the showerhead they claim the landlord offered as a replacement. The only showerheads I am aware of that are used for babies are made of rubber and attach to taps. I find it unlikely the landlord would have offered to replace the showerhead with something of this nature.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord offered to replace the showerhead with a showerhead like the one shown in the photograph. The pressure appears adequate, and I accept the landlord’s evidence that this would most likely have fixed the problem, because it was lighter than the showerhead that was installed.
The tenant cannot remember when the landlord offered to replace the showerhead. The landlord claims it was around 2 – 3 years ago, which is 2022 – 2023.
The tenancy began on 11 March 2021. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord offered to replace the showerhead in 2022. The tenant declined the replacement and in doing so, I find the tenant contributed to a further delay in repair between 2022 – January/February 2024, when the showerhead holder was replaced. In these circumstances, I consider the landlord should only be responsible for the delay between 11 March 2021 and 2022, which is approximately 9 months.
A shower is used daily. If it is not working properly, it is likely to be a cause of frustration and detract from the amenity of the premises. I find a delay of approximately 9 months to offer an appropriate remedy to the problem unreasonable. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to maintain the showerhead and holder in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $20.00 per month to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have had regard to the fact the tenant was still able to use the shower. They found it annoying needing to move it up or down the sliding rail or point it in a specific direction.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $180.00. Benchtop leaking into kitchen cupboards Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the kitchen smelt bad early on in the tenancy. The tenant claims they looked inside the cupboards underneath the sink and noticed water was leaking from the benchtop. The tenant claims the landlord applied silicone to the top of the kitchen bench, but it should have been applied underneath inside the cupboards. Further, the tenant claims the job was done poorly, because the landlord did not use non-mould silicone, applied the silicone 10mm wide and left silicone on the bench. The tenant claims this was a health hazard when preparing food. The tenant could not recall when the landlord applied the silicone, but claims the issue was not properly fixed until early March 2024 when the plumber visited the premises.
The landlord claims they applied silicone to the top of the bench which is the appropriate place to prevent water from leaking down into the cupboards below. The landlord claims they used food grade silicone and did a professional job. The landlord is an electrician and claims they have extensive experience using silicone. To appease the tenant, the landlord organised for a plumber to replace the silicone on 10 March 2024. Analysis
Neither party gave evidence about when the tenant first raised the issue about water leaking into the kitchen cupboards with the landlord or when the landlord responded by visiting the premises and applying silicone. Notwithstanding this, I find the landlord most likely responded within a reasonable timeframe, as the tenant’s claim focused on the adequacy of the repair completed by the landlord, rather than the length of time it took.
The tenant did not submit any photographs of the silicone applied by the landlord. In the absence of any photographs, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities it was applied poorly. The landlord is a professional electrician and I accept their evidence that they are familiar with how to use silicone.
I reject the tenant’s claim that the silicone should have been applied underneath the kitchen cupboards, not on top of the kitchen bench. The tenant is not a qualified builder, electrician or plumber. They are unable to give this kind of expert evidence. I accept the landlord’s evidence that silicone is generally applied on top of the kitchen bench along the outer edges where it meets the wall.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the repair completed by the landlord was inadequate. The landlord responded to the issue within a reasonable time of becoming aware of it.
This claim is dismissed. Laundry cupboards Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the paint was falling off around the edges of the supertub in the laundry. The tenant also claims the door was swollen and peeling paint.
The landlord claims the supertub is dated and the missing paint is a result of fair wear and tear over time. The landlord submits the issue is minor and did not require repair. Analysis
The tenant submitted a photograph of the laundry supertub. It is dated and a very small amount of paint has worn off around the top. Similarly, very small amounts of paint have come off the supertub at the top part of where the door closes.
I agree with the landlord that the issue is minor and consistent with fair wear and tear over time. It is not significant. Any kind of reduction to the visual amenity of the premises is likely to have been extremely minimal. Even if the cupboard door was slightly swollen as claimed by the tenant, the overall usability of the supertub was not affected.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced this was a defect that required repair. For this reason, this claim is dismissed. Mould in the rubber seal of the shower glass and silicone in the bathroom Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the rubber seal at the bottom of the shower glass was mouldy, as well as the silicone in the bathroom, especially around the vanity. The tenant claims this was a health hazard because their son placed their contacts on top of the vanity.
The tenant claims they raised the issue with the landlord verbally at the beginning of the tenancy and for the first time in writing in the 14-day notice dated 15 February 2024. The tenant claims the rubber seal in the shower glass was never fixed and the silicone in the bathroom was replaced in March 2024.
The landlord denies the tenant ever brought up these issues verbally and the first time the landlord became aware of them was on 15 February 2024 in the 14-day notice.
The landlord claims the mould in the rubber seal at the bottom of the shower glass is minimal and not a big issue. The landlord denies the silicone in the bathroom was as bad as the tenant claims. Nevertheless, to appease the tenant, the landlord organised for all of the silicone in the bathroom to be replaced in March 2024. An invoice from the plumber was submitted. Analysis
The landlord submitted a photograph of the rubber seal at the bottom of the shower glass. Some mould/grime is present, but it is minimal. It is not uncommon for cracks and crevices in a bath/shower to attract some mould or grime as a result of everyday living over time. No evidence about the rubber seal being broken was submitted. The tenant claims it was unsanitary, because the mould/grime would run when the shower was turned on. No photographs of this were submitted and I consider it unlikely that this happened as the mould/grime is minimal and enclosed within the rubber seal.
The invoice from the plumber confirms a glass specialist is required to remove the entire glass panel and change the rubber seal. The rubber seal cannot easily be replaced. Removing the entire glass panel is a big job for what is a very minor issue.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the rubber seal on the bottom of the shower glass was in a reasonable state of repair and did not require any further action.
I reach the same conclusion in respect of the silicone in the bathroom. The tenant submitted some close up photographs from around the bath and vanity. A small amount of mould is present in the silicone.
The landlord has a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their age and character. The premises were not brand new and have some age to them. A small amount of mould on part of the silicone around the bath and vanity is not unreasonable for a house of this age. On the balance of probabilities, I find the silicone in the bathroom was in a reasonable state of repair and did not require replacement. Notwithstanding this, the landlord replaced the silicone on 10 March 2024 and submitted an invoice from the plumber. This is within a reasonable timeframe after the tenant’s 14-day notice sent on 15 February 2024.
For these reasons, this claim is dismissed. Skirting board in the kitchen Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims part of the skirting in the kitchen was detached and was a tripping hazard. Analysis
The tenant submitted a photograph of the skirting board. The amount of skirting that is detached from the wall is minimal and the extent of the detachment is minor. It is certainly not detached enough to pose a tripping hazard.
The landlord has a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their age and character. The premises are not new. They are dated and the skirting board has most likely become a little bit loose over time due to everyday living. The state of the skirting board is commensurate with the age and character of the premises. This was not a defect that required repair.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced the landlord failed to maintain the skirting board in a reasonable state of repair. For this reason, this claim is dismissed. Carpet Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the carpet was loose and needed re-stretching. The tenant claims there were rolls in the carpet that created a tripping hazard. The tenant claims they raised the issue with the landlord verbally early on in the tenancy and for the first time in writing in the 14-day notice dated 15 February 2024.
The landlord accepts there is a wave in the carpet in the hallway, but claims overall it is in a reasonable condition. The landlord claims the tenant first brought the issue to their attention on 15 February 2024 in the 14-day notice. Analysis
Photographs of the carpet were submitted by the tenant. It is patterned and appears old. There are a number of waves in the carpet in the hallway. The landlord’s inspection report dated 20 August 2024 also notes that the carpet has ripples and may need stretching out. This evidence convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the carpet was in an unreasonable state of repair.
The inspection report notes the carpet is in average condition. This does not alter my finding that it needed to be stretched. The photographs are strong evidence this needed to occur.
The carpet does not appear rippled in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware that the carpet needing stretching on 15 February 2024. The landlord denies the tenant discussed the issue with them beforehand verbally and no evidence to support this was submitted.
The carpet remained in the same condition until the end of the tenancy, which is a period of approximately 14 months. The landlord was dealing with a number of other maintenance requests by the tenant at the time and understandably needed to prioritise repairs. Notwithstanding this, I still consider a delay of 14 months to be unreasonable.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to maintain the carpet in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $20.00 per month to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have had regard to the extent of the problem as shown in the photographs.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $280.00. Back steps Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the backdoor concrete steps were painted and slippery. They claim they raised the issue with the landlord verbally early on in the tenancy and for the first time in writing in the 14-day notice dated 15 February 2024.
The landlord installed grip tape on the steps, but this repair was inadequate. The tenant claims the tape is too thick and causes water to pool on the steps, which makes them slippery.
The landlord claims the paint on the concrete steps is not high gloss and is appropriate paint for outdoors. The landlord denies the tenant raised the issue verbally before the 14-day notice dated 15 February 2025. The landlord claims the grip tape used is adequate and is only 0.5mm thick. The landlord disputes the claim it caused water to pool. Analysis
It is common for outdoor concrete to be painted. The fact that the back steps were painted does not raise any alarm. No expert evidence was submitted by the tenant confirming that the type of paint used was inappropriate. I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities this was the case.
The landlord denies the tenant raised the issue with them verbally early on in the tenancy. No supporting evidence was submitted to confirm this was the case and I am not convinced it was. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the steps being slippery on 15 February 2024 when the 14-day notice was issued.
I am convinced the repair completed by the landlord was adequate. The landlord submitted an invoice from KRPro Services Ltd dated 27 February 2024. It records that grit tape was installed on the steps. Photographs of the steps with the tape on them were submitted. The tape does not seem thick and the job looks to have been professionally completed.
The tenant did not submit any photographs of the steps with pooling water. I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tape caused this issue or that the repair was inadequate.
The landlord remedied the problem within 12 days of being made aware of it. This is a reasonable timeframe.
This claim is dismissed. Oven Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the control panel on the oven broke and the landlord completed a temporary repair by screwing it back together and applying silicone. The tenant claims the landlord purchased a second-hand oven, which was in poor condition and not usable. The tenant claims it took three weeks before a new oven was purchased an installed.
The landlord claims the oven broke on 22 January 2024 and they immediately visited the premises to complete a temporary repair. The landlord purchased a second-hand oven, which was installed on 4 February 2024. A new oven was installed on 16 February 2024. Analysis
The tenant submitted a copy of a text message they sent to the landlord on 22 January 2024 about the broken control panel on the oven. I find this to be the date the landlord first became aware of the issue.
The landlord purchased and installed a second hand replacement oven on 4 February 2024, two weeks later. Unfortunately, the second hand oven had some problems, including that the bottom tray/drawer was broken. The tenant submitted a photograph of this.
The landlord submitted a receipt for the purchase of a new oven for $549.00 on 16 February 2024. I find this to be the date the new oven was installed.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord made attempts to investigate and remedy the broken oven within a reasonable timeframe. It was reasonable for them to try to replace the oven with a second hand one in the first instance to try to minimise their loss. Also, the oven provided at the beginning of the tenancy was not new. The landlord purchased and installed the second hand oven within two weeks of receiving notice that the original oven was broken. The landlord purchased and installed a new oven within four days of receiving notice that the second hand oven had defects.
I find the landlord investigated and remedied the broken oven within a reasonable timeframe.
This claim is dismissed. Toilet cistern Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the toilet cistern fell off one day while they were out. They cannot remember when this occurred. The tenant claims the landlord visited the premises and put a plank of wood against the wall to attach the cistern to. The tenant claims the repair did not look very nice and it took 9 – 12 months before a plumber visited the premises, removed the plank of wood and reattached the cistern properly.
The landlord claims the toilet cistern fell off approximately three years ago. The landlord claims they responded immediately and installed a piece of wood on the wall to attach the cistern to. The landlord claims the tenant only expressed dissatisfaction with the repair on 15 February 2024 in the 14-day notice. A plumber visited the premises, removed the piece of wood and attached the cistern to the wall shortly thereafter. The landlord submitted an invoice from the plumber dated 3 March 2024.
The landlord claims that they fixed the problem properly and despite the plumber’s work, the landlord needs to reinstall the piece of wood. Analysis
The tenant cannot remember when the toilet cistern fell from the wall. The landlord claims it happened approximately three years ago. On the balance of probabilities, I find it happened in 2022.
I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord responded quickly when the tenant first reported the issue. Both parties gave consistent evidence on this.
The parties gave differing evidence about the nature of the repair. The tenant claims it was temporary and the landlord claims it was permanent. The tenant claims the repair worked to hold the cistern in place, but it did not look very nice.
Photographs of the repair completed by the landlord were submitted. These show a small piece of wood behind the toilet cistern. The paint job has not been completed properly. The wood only has a thin layer of paint on it and the wall above the cistern is patchy with drip marks. On the balance of probabilities, I find the repair completed by the landlord is properly classified as a temporary repair. I also find the problem was not properly fixed until around 3 March 2024 when the plumber visited the premises.
I disagree with the landlord’s claim that they properly fixed the issue and despite the efforts of the plumber, the landlord needs to return to the premises to reinstall the piece of wood. The invoice notes that the plumber secured the cistern to the wall with hollow wall anchors. These are a special type of tool used to securely mount objects to walls made of hollow material such as drywall or plasterboard.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord was aware of the state of repair of the toilet cistern in 2022 when they completed the temporary repair. The toilet cistern was not properly fixed until around 3 March 2024, which is a period of approximately 2 years. I find this delay unreasonable.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to maintain the toilet cistern in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $100.00 to be reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have had regard to the fact that the temporary repair was functionally adequate and the main concern for the tenant was the fact it did not look nice. Letterbox
The tenant claims the letterbox flap broke and their mail got wet when it rained. The tenant claims they notified the landlord verbally approximately halfway through the tenancy and again in the 14-day notice dated 15 February 2024. The tenant claims the landlord fixed the problem by replacing the letterbox shortly before the tenancy ended.
The landlord denies the tenant ever raised the issue with them verbally and claims they first learnt about it on 15 February 2024. The landlord claims it is not unusual for some water to get into a letterbox and a replacement letterbox was installed on 29 March 2025. Analysis
The tenant submitted a photograph of the letterbox. The flap on the back is broken and falling off. This was an issue that required repair.
The landlord denies the tenant raised the problem with them verbally halfway through the tenancy. In the absence of any corroborating evidence confirming this was the case, I am not convinced it was. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue on 15 February 2024.
The problem was fixed on 29 March 2025. The landlord submitted a receipt for the purchase of a new letterbox, which is dated 29 March 2025. I find this to be the date the landlord replaced the letterbox.
There is a delay of just over one year between when the landlord became aware of the issue and when the repair was completed. I accept the tenant had raised numerous other, more pressing maintenance issues that required attention. Notwithstanding this, I still find a delay of just over one year unreasonable.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord failed to maintain the letterbox in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I consider $5.00 per month to be reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have had regard to the fact that dealing with wet mail was not an issue the tenant most likely dealt with every day.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $65.00. Backdoor taps
The tenant claims the backdoor tap leaked and fell off. The tenant claims it leaked when it was not turned on and increased once it was turned on. The tenant claims they raised the problem verbally with the landlord within the first year of the tenancy and for the first time in writing on 15 February 2024. The tenant accepts the problem was fixed but cannot remember when.
The landlord denies the backdoor tap leaked when not turned on. The landlord accepts it leaked a little bit when turned on but claims this is not a big issue. The landlord denies the tenant brought the issue to their attention verbally one year into the tenancy and claims the first time they were alerted to the problem was 15 February 2024.
The landlord submitted an invoice from a plumber dated 10 March 2024. Analysis
I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the backdoor tap leaked when turned on, but not when it was turned off. This is because the plumber’s invoice states “replaced external hose tap that was leaking when turned on and hard to operate.”
The landlord denies the tenant alerted them to the problem verbally approximately one year into the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence confirming this was the case, I am not convinced it was. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue on 15 February 2024 with the 14-day notice.
The invoice from the plumber is dated 10 March 2024, which is when the problem was fixed. That is a period of approximately 3 weeks, which is a reasonable timeframe. The problem was not major and the landlord needed to prioritise the many maintenance requests made by the tenant at the time.
I am not convinced the landlord failed to maintain the outdoor tap in a reasonable state of repair.
This claim is dismissed. Backdoor hinges Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims rivets were installed in the hinges of the backdoor instead of screws. The tenant also claims some were missing and the door was risk of falling off. The tenant claims they alerted the landlord to the problem verbally around 2022 and for the first time in writing in the 14-day notice dated 15 February 2024.
The landlord claims the first time the tenant alerted them to the issue was in the 14-day notice and the problem was fixed on 27 February 2024. Analysis
The landlord denies the tenant alerted them to the problem verbally approximately one year into the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence confirming this was the case, I am not convinced it was. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue when the tenant sent them the 14-day notice on 15 February 2024.
The landlord submitted an invoice from the locksmith dated 27 February 2024, which proves the problem was fixed on this date.
It took the landlord 12 days to fix the problem, which I find to be a reasonable timeframe.
This claim is dismissed. Garage gutters Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the garage gutters had rust holes in them. The tenant claims they alerted the landlord to the problem verbally at the beginning of the tenancy and for the first time in writing in a 14-day notice dated 18 February 2024. The tenant cannot remember when the problem was fixed, but claims it took a long time.
The landlord claims they were first alerted to the problem on 18 February 2024 when they received the 14-day notice. The landlord claims they tried to fix the problem themselves in May 2024, but were denied access by the tenant. The landlord claims the problem was fixed sometime in July 2024. Analysis
The entry inspection photographs show the beginnings of rust on the garage gutters however, the problem does not appear to have been at the point where remediation was required. I say this because there is only a very small hole present.
The tenant submitted photographs which are not dated. These show the hole in guttering has increased in size. Rust appears to have eaten away at the guttering and the problem is at a point where repair is required.
The landlord denies the tenant alerted them to the issue verbally early on in the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence confirming this was the case, I am not convinced it was. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue when the tenant sent the 14-day notice dated 18 February 2024.
The tenant cannot remember when the problem was fixed, whereas the landlord can. They state it was fixed sometime in July 2024. On the balance of probabilities, I find the problem was fixed in July 2024.
There is a delay of approximately 4 – 5 months between the date the landlord became aware of the problem and the date it was fixed. I do not consider this delay unreasonable. This is because the landlord was responding to more than 20 maintenance issues the tenant had raised in 14-day notices sent on 15 and 18 February 2024. The state of the garage gutter was less of a concern than some of the other claims around the structural integrity of the premises and water ingress.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to maintain the garage gutters in a reasonable state of repair.
This claim is dismissed. Dampness and efflorescence in the garage and under the house Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the garage and under the house were damp all year round, especially in winter. The tenant claims efflorescence developed in these areas, which proves dampness was a problem. The tenant also claims the efflorescence corroded their tools and other items stored in the garage and under the house.
The tenant claims they alerted the landlord to this issue verbally throughout the tenancy and for the first time in writing on 18 February 2024 in a 14-day notice.
The landlord claims the house and garage are not damp. The landlord claims the premises were built in the 1960’s and it is normal for there to be some calcification on the brickwork. Analysis
Photographs of the garage and under the house were submitted by both parties. Efflorescence is present in these areas however, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that this means the garage and under the house were unreasonably damp. The tenant is not a qualified builder and cannot give this kind of expert evidence. The tenant submitted some extracts from the internet that discuss efflorescence. These extracts state things such as: Efflorescence is not dangerous, but it can lead to moisture problems causing structural damage to building materials.
The tenant did not refer to the author of these internet materials or what qualifications they have. Further, these comments are made about efflorescence generally and have not been given in direct response to the efflorescence that was present at the premises. For these reasons, I attach very little weight to these internet materials evidence.
The landlord submitted a building inspection report dated 14 May 2024. The report has been completed by an appropriately qualified building inspector with over 25 years practical building experience in New Zealand and overseas. Therefore, I consider the contents of the report to be reliable and accurate. The report notes: Generally, the subfloor and timber elements appear to have been well constructed and are currently in good condition for their type and age. The subfloor was reasonably dry and well ventilated at the time of inspection through the use of grill type base vents installed in the base cladding. A moisture barrier and under floor insulation has been installed. ... There is some efflorescence visible to the face of the brick foundation walls, efflorescence is the white, grey, brown or yellow deposit that often forms on the surface of concrete, plaster, brick word, stone and concrete masonry. These deposits usually done affect the performance of the material – they’re confined to the surface and can be removed if they are considered unsightly. Efflorescence is caused by soluble salts being brought to the surface by liquid water. The salts maybe compounds of calcium, sodium or potassium. The efflorescence visible has occurred over a long period of time, due to moisture slowly seeping through the brick walls and is not considered to affect the structural integrity of the walls themselves. ... The current exterior finished ground levels are more than satisfactory to prevent any moisture ingress by means of capillary action. There is adequate height separation between the exterior finished ground levels and internal finished floor levels. ... The garage appears to have been well constructed with only minor signs of stress movement, and there is some efflorescence visible to the surface of the garage floor. All [internal moisture] readings returned figures between 22 – 48 indicating there was no excessive moisture present in the internal framing in the areas tested at the time of inspection... .. In conclusion, it is our professional opinion that the dwelling is generally sound and of good construction, methods and workmanship, subject to comments on remedial work.
The contents of the building inspection report convince me on the balance of probabilities that the presence of efflorescence in the garage and under the house has most likely developed over time and is not a cause for concern. The report does not state that the garage or under the house are unreasonably damp. It concludes that there are sufficient systems in place to prevent water entering under the house. Similarly, the inside of the house did not return any concerning moisture level readings. Overall, it assesses the premises as being “generally sound and of good construction.”
The tenant claims the efflorescence ate away at their tools. The tenant submitted some photographs of nails that were rusted, but other photographs show a large amount of items were stored in the garage by the tenant and appeared to be in good condition.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the garage or under the house were unreasonably damp or that the presence of efflorescence was an issue that needed to be remedied.
This claim is dismissed. Mould in the house Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the house had a lot of mould in it. The tenant claims mould was an issue since the beginning of the tenancy and they advised the landlord about it verbally, over text message, and in a 14-day notice dated 18 February 2024.
The landlord accepts that the bedroom on the southside of the premises sometimes accrued mould in a small area on the ceiling. The landlord claims this is because the southside does not attract as much sunlight as the rest of the house. The landlord claims they provided the tenant with a dehumidifier and suggested they ventilate this bedroom, as well as clean it more regularly than other areas of the house.
The landlord denies there was an issue with extensive mould in the premises. Analysis
A small amount of mould inside a premises is not unusual or a cause for major concern. Mould sometimes develops in winter when conditions are likely to be more damp and the premises are not ventilated as frequently as they may be in summer.
The tenant submitted photographs of some mould inside the premises. The mould does not appear to be black mould and it is nowhere near the level of seriousness the Tribunal sees in some cases. The photographs submitted are taken close up and show small spots of mould on a wall. Other photographs show some mould inside a cupboard.
The landlord submitted copies of routine inspection reports dated 5 April 2023, 24 July 2023, 30 October 2023, 20 August 2024,19 November 2024 and 18 February 2025. These reports contain hundreds of photographs inside the premises. There are no concerning photographs of mould in any of these reports. The only mention of mould is in the report dated 19 November 2024. The landlord notes that some mould was present in the bedroom on the southside. The landlord notes the tenant advised they last cleaned it 6 months prior, and the landlord advised them they needed to clean it more regularly, because it is south facing.
I prefer the evidence contained in the routine inspections over the tenant’s own photographs. This is because the photographs in the routine inspections are more thorough. They contain hundreds of photographs inside the premises over a long period of time. In contrast, the tenant has only provided a handful of photographs, most of which are close up photographs and none of which are dated. No concerning mould can be seen in any of the photographs from the routine inspections.
The building inspection does not note any issues with high moisture readings inside the premises, which usually go hand in hand with mould issues. Nothing is mentioned about mould either.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced there was a problem with extensive mould inside the premises. The tenant has not proven this was an issue that required remediation.
This claim is dismissed. Decomposing wood under the house Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims that all of the firewood under the house was not properly cleared before the moisture barrier was installed. As a result, the tenant claims the remaining firewood got damp, rotten and made the house smell bad.
The landlord claims under the house was cleared properly before the moisture barrier was installed. Analysis
The landlord submitted an invoice dated 23 March 2021 from WC Electrical Ltd. It states “light rubbish removal, ground prep and installation of ground vapour barrier.”
The tenant submitted one photograph of the moisture barrier lifted up. A single twig is present. This is far from sufficient evidence to convince me on the balance of probabilities that damp, rotting wood permeated the floor upon which the moisture barrier covered.
Nothing is mentioned about the house smelling badly in any of the routine inspections.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced there was damp, rotting wood underneath the moisture barrier that caused the house to smell.
This claim is dismissed. Ants Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims there was a problem with ants at the premises. The tenant claims they keep a clean and tidy house and therefore, the presence of ants was due to a problem with the premises.
The landlord denies there was an infestation of ants and claims it is not unusual for ants to appear from time to time. Analysis
I agree with the comments of the landlord about the presence of ants. Sometimes they appear inside a premises, regardless of how clean and tidy a person lives.
In the majority of cases, the presence of ants is not something for the landlord to respond to. A tenant can easily manage the problem themselves by purchasing ant killer from the supermarket. The situation might be different if an ant colony developed on the ground outside the premises, but no evidence to this effect was submitted.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced there was a significant problem with ants at the premises that the landlord needed to remedy.
This claim is dismissed. Lack of silicone around the bath filler in the bathroom Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the bath filler did not have silicone around it and water would seep into the wall when the shower was turned on. The tenant claims they raised this issue with the landlord verbally at the beginning of the tenancy and for the first time in writing on 18 April 2024 in a 14-day notice.
The landlord claims the lack of silicone in this area was not a problem however, to appease the tenant, they organised for a plumber to install some silicone within 14 days after receiving the tenant’s notice sent on 18 April 2024. Analysis
The tenant is not a qualified builder or plumber. Therefore, I attach very little weight to their claim that the bath filler needed silicone around it.
The landlord denies the tenant brought the issue to their attention verbally at the beginning of the tenancy. In the absence of any corroborating evidence confirming otherwise, I am not convinced this was the case. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue on 18 April 2024 in the 14-day notice. A plumber visited the premises within 14 days of this date and fixed the problem. Therefore, the problem was remedied within a reasonable timeframe.
For these reasons, this claim is dismissed. Bathroom vanity Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the cupboard in the bathroom vanity was mouldy. The tenant also claims the bathroom vanity was not installed correctly and was unlevel. The tenant claims this caused water to pool at the back of the vanity and caused the silicone to become mouldy. Further, the tenant claims there is no silicone at the base of the tap.
The tenant claims they notified the landlord about this issue verbally, but could not remember when. They raised it in writing for the first time in the 14-day notice dated 18 April 2024.
The landlord claims there is nothing wrong with the vanity or cupboard. Analysis
No photographs of the vanity cupboard were submitted. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities the cupboard was mouldy.
The tenant is not a qualified builder and therefore, I attach very little weight to their claim that the vanity was not installed properly and the tap needed silicone at its base. A photograph of the vanity was submitted by the tenant. Nothing stands out from the photograph alone as indicating the vanity was not installed properly. Expert evidence from an appropriately qualified builder is required to support the tenant’s claim, which the tenant has not produced.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities the bathroom vanity was installed incorrectly, was not level or required silicone at the base of the tap.
This claim is dismissed. Patio door lock Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the patio door lock was loose and did not work properly. The tenant claims they advised the landlord about the problem verbally and for the first time in writing in a 14-day notice dated 18 April 2024. The tenant claims the problem was fixed at the same time as the backdoor lock.
The landlord claims the tenant never raised the issue with them verbally and they first learnt about it was in the 14-day notice dated 18 April 2024. Analysis
The landlord denies the tenant alerted them to this issue verbally before 18 April 2024. In the absence of any corroborating evidence confirming this was the case, I am not convinced it was. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue on 18 April 2024 when the tenant sent the 14-day notice. By this date, the problem had already been fixed according to the tenant’s own evidence. The tenant claims they asked the locksmith to fix the patio door lock at the same time the backdoor lock was fixed. The backdoor lock was fixed on 27 February 2024 per the invoice from the locksmith.
By the time the landlord became aware of the issue with the patio door lock, it had already been fixed. The landlord was not given a reasonable opportunity to investigate and repair the problem upon becoming aware of it. For this reason, this claim is dismissed. Kitchen cupboards Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the hinges kept falling off the kitchen cupboards. Whilst the landlord completed repairs, the tenant claims the replacement hinges were too small and not strong enough to support the kitchen cupboards.
The tenant claims they raised the issue with the landlord verbally many times and for the first time in writing on 18 April 2024 in a 14-day notice. The tenant claims the problem was not fixed until just before the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims a handyman fixed the kitchen hinges on 18 December 2024 and submitted an invoice. Analysis
The landlord denies the tenant alerted them to the state of the kitchen cupboards verbally before 18 April 2024. In the absence of any corroborating evidence confirming this was the case, I am not convinced it was. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue on 18 April 2024.
The landlord completed an inspection on 20 August 2024 and the inspection report notes that the kitchen cupboard hinges need repairing. There is a photograph of one of the cupboards with the hinge detached.
The landlord submitted an invoice from KRPro Services Ltd dated 18 December 2024. Is records the hinges were adjusted on this date. On the balance of probabilities, I find the issue was fixed on 18 December 2024.
There is a delay of approximately 8 months between the date the landlord first became aware of the issue and the date it was remedied. At this stage, the landlord had received three 14-day notices from the tenant listing a total of 45 issues that apparently needed repair. Some of the issues complained about were serious such as, allegations the premises were structurally unsound, had shifted and were damp. The landlord understandably prioritised these matters over the kitchen cabinets. Ordinarily, I would consider a delay of 8 months to fix kitchen cabinets unreasonable however, in this context, I find the delay reasonable.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced the landlord failed to maintain the kitchen cabinets in a reasonable state of repair.
This claim is dismissed. Front patio Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the plastic roof on the front patio was loose and would flap about in the wind. On one occasion, the tenant claims parts of the plastic broke off in strong winds. They submitted a copy of a text message sent to the landlord on 3 August 2021 with a photograph. The landlord repaired the roofing themselves, but the tenant claims the repair was inadequate. The tenant claims the purlins were loose and cross-bracing was required.
The landlord claims the patio was in a reasonable condition. Further, the landlord claims they repaired the plastic roof in a timely manner and the repair was adequate. Analysis
The tenant is not a qualified builder. Therefore, I attach very little weight to their comments about the structural integrity of the patio or the state of the purlins.
The tenant submitted some photographs of the patio however, in the absence of an expert witness to comment on these photographs, I am unable to draw any conclusions.
The building inspection report submitted by the landlord states that the patio is in a reasonable condition, although notes it would be prudent to install some bracing.
The tenant bares the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that the patio was in an unreasonable state of repair following the landlord’s restoration of the roof. In the absence of any expert evidence, I am not convinced this was the case.
This claim is dismissed. Rainwater running under the house Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims water ran under the house. The tenant claims this created efflorescence and caused rising damp. The tenant claims they asked the landlord many times to visit the premises when it was raining, but this never occurred.
The tenant claims the Auckland Council visited the premises and completed an inspection. The tenant claims the Auckland Council advised there were maintenance issues with the premises. In particular, the foundations were not in a good condition.
The landlord claims they have not had any issues with the Auckland Council in relation to the premises. The landlord claims if a little bit of water went under the house, this is not unusual. Analysis
The tenant submitted a lot of photographs to support this claim, but I do not find them helpful. All they show is water on the ground. No evidence from the Council was submitted and I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the Council have any serious concerns about the premises.
The tenant is not a qualified builder and therefore, I attach very little weight to their own evidence about water running under the house.
The only expert evidence is the building inspection report. It notes that the exterior ground levels “are more than satisfactory to prevent any moisture ingress by means of capillary action.” This evidence suggests it is highly unlikely that water would run under the house.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that water ran under the house. The tenant has not proven this was an issue that required repair.
This claim is dismissed. Blocked drains Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the drains on both sides of the garage were blocked. The tenant claims they alerted the landlord to the problem, but could not remember when. The tenant claims they mentioned it for the first time in writing in a 14-day notice dated 18 April 2024. The tenant claims the landlord sent a plumber over before this date to try to fix the issue, but the repair did not work.
The landlord claims a plumber was sent the premises on 15 and 25 March 2024. They plunged and hydro blasted the drains, which fixed the problem. Analysis
Neither party can remember when the tenant first advised the landlord of the blocked drains in the garage for the first time. This makes it difficult for me to assess whether the landlord acted within a reasonable timeframe to investigate and remedy the problem.
The landlord submitted an invoice from Tibbits Plumbing & Maintenance Specialists dated 26 March 2024. It confirms that they visited the premises twice on 15 and 25 March 2024 in relation to the garage drains. The drains were plunged on the first visit, but a recommendation for a hydro blast was made. The drains were hydro blasted on 25 March 2024 and the invoice notes it cleared up to 4 metres of the stormwater drain.
The landlord has submitted evidence to suggest that the problem was fixed after the two visits from the plumber. The tenant claims this was not the case however, no expert evidence confirming the same was submitted.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord investigated and remedied the blocked drains within a reasonable timeframe. I am not convinced that the issue persisted after the plumber’s second visit.
This claim is dismissed. Toilet pipe Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims there was a patch of grass that was constantly wet in summer and winter. The tenant claims they raised the issue with the landlord verbally at the beginning of the tenancy, but nothing was done. The tenant claims the house dropped and put pressure on the underground toilet pipe, causing it to crack and leak. The tenant claims they alerted the landlord in writing for the first time on 18 April 2024 in a 14-day notice and the problem was not fixed until just before the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the first time the tenant raised a concern about wet ground and a possible leaking pipe was on 18 April 2024 in the 14-day notice. The landlord claims they were denied entry onto the premises to investigate the problem until December 2024. The landlord claims a plumber visited the premises around this time and fixed the problem. Analysis
The landlord denies the tenant alerted them to the fact that the ground was permanently wet verbally before 18 April 2024. In the absence of any corroborating evidence confirming the tenant raised the issue verbally before this date, I am not convinced they did. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue on 18 April 2024.
The tenant did not want the landlord to investigate the issue, because the relationship had become strained. The appropriate course of action would have been for the landlord to have instructed a professional to investigate the issue, rather than waiting until December 2024 when the tenant allowed them onto the premises to look at it.
The tenant claims the issue was not fixed until just before they left the tenancy, whereas the landlord claims it was fixed in December 2024. Neither party submitted any supporting evidence confirming the date the leaking pipe was fixed. On the balance of probabilities, I find the issue was remedied in December 2024.
There is a delay of approximately 7 months between when the landlord became aware of the issue and when it was eventually fixed. At this stage, the landlord had received three 14-day notices from the tenant listing 45 issues that apparently needed repair. Some of the issues were serious such as, allegations the premises were structurally unsound and damp. The landlord understandably prioritised these matters first. Notwithstanding this, I still consider a delay of 7 months to be unreasonable in the context of a leaking pipe. This type of maintenance issue is more serious than broken hinges on kitchen cabinets.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to maintain the underground toilet pipe in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I consider $100.00 to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have had regard to the fact that the delay took place in the context of the landlord needing to respond to 45 alleged maintenance issues at the time. Further, I do not find the tenant suffered a significant loss of amenity, as the leak occurred in a small area outside the premises. I am not convinced the leak contributed to water ingress under the house and in the garage, as claimed by the tenant. The tenant is not qualified to give this kind of evidence and the building inspection report does not note any concerns around water pooling under the house.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $100.00. Front fence Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises had a small wooden fence at the beginning of the tenancy, which blew down in August 2021. A replacement fence was erected, but it was a wire fence. The tenant claims the fence should have been replaced by a wooden fence and the wire fence was unsafe, because it had spikes at the top. The tenant claims it was hard to mow the lawn, because the section is on a hill and they cut themselves on the fence.
The landlord claims they are not required to replace the wooden fence with another wooden fence and the wire fence is entirely adequate. Analysis
The wooden fence provided at the beginning of the tenancy was clearly on its last legs. It is not surprising that it needed to be replaced by August 2021. From the photographs submitted, the wire fence appears adequate. It is a similar height to the wooden fence.
The tenant did not have pets. A wooden fence might be considered to provide more security in terms of containing animals compared to a wire fence however, the tenant did not have any animals to contain.
The landlord was not required to replace the wooden fence with a wooden fence. They can replace it with a different fence, as long as it is not worse than the original fence. Considering the age and condition of the wooden fence at the beginning of the tenancy, I find the replacement wire fence to be of the same calibre.
The photographs of the fence show the premises is on a flat section and any lean towards the fence is minimal. I am far from convinced the wire fence posed a safety risk as claimed by the tenant or that the tenant cur their hand on it when mowing the lawns.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord replaced the broken wooden fence in a timely manner and the installation of a wire fence was adequate.
This claim is dismissed. Asbestos Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the front fence was made partly from asbestos and there was also asbestos around the vegetable garden. When the landlord removed the fence, the tenant claims they notified them that some of it was asbestos and asked them to remove the asbestos from the vegetable garden too. The tenant claims the landlord broke up the asbestos on the premises, which is a health and safety concern in terms of particles entering the house. Further the tenant claims the landlord tried to dispose of the asbestos in a regular skip bin and the tenant got in trouble from the skip bin company. The tenant claims the asbestos remained on the premises for one week before it was disposed of properly.
The landlord claims they were unaware the fence was partly made from asbestos until the tenant advised them of this. Once the landlord knew this, they arranged for appropriate disposal of the asbestos. The landlord denies breaking the asbestos up in the garden with a hammer and claims they broke it up inside the bin. Analysis
Neither party gave evidence about when this incident happened, which makes it difficult for me to determine if the landlord acted within a reasonable timeframe.
This issue is not included in any of the 14-day notices, which suggests it was dealt with in a timely manner.
The landlord submitted an invoice from Advanced Environmental Services Ltd, which confirms 8.5m² of asbestos fence sheeting was removed from the premises and disposed of professionally. This evidence convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the landlord acted within a reasonable timeframe to appropriately remove the asbestos.
This claim is dismissed. House downpipe Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the pipe by the corner of the third bedroom was broken. The tenant claims it would not drain rainwater properly and the rubber seal was missing. The tenant claims they reported the issue verbally to the landlord within the first week of the tenancy and for the first time in writing in the 14-day notice dated 18 April 2024. The tenant claims the landlord put silicone around the top of the pipe, but this repair was inadequate, because the issue was underground.
The tenant claims the problem was never properly fixed.
The landlord claims the tenant raised the issue with them for the first time in the 14-day notice dated 18 April 2024. The landlord claims the tenant only mentioned the pipe being cracked, not that it was leaking. The landlord claims they had all of the exterior piping inspected in December 2024 and no concerns were noted. Analysis
The landlord denies the tenant alerted them to the state of the pipe until 18 April 2024 when the 14-day notice was sent. In the absence of any corroborating evidence confirming the tenant raised the issue verbally before this date, I am not convinced they did. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue on 18 April 2024.
The 14-day notice states “house down pipe – clay pipe broken around lip. Let’s ground water into pipe.” No mention of the pipe leaking underground is made, which supports the landlord’s claim that the tenant’s only concern was that the pipe was cracked.
The landlord submitted a copy of a report from Choice Plumbing, which the landlord claims they commissioned in December 2024. It does not record any problems with the outdoor piping. This convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the repair completed by the landlord was adequate.
The tenant has not submitted enough evidence to support their claim that the pipe leaked underground or that the repair completed by the landlord was inadequate.
This claim is dismissed.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

I have found that the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) RTA. This constitutes an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 21
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord acted intentionally. This is because the landlord had to respond to over 45 maintenance requests made by the tenant within a short period of time. I consider any delay in attending to repairs to most likely have been inadvertent, not intentional.
For this reason, I decline to order exemplary damages. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? The law
Section 38 RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord.” Section 38(2) states that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” Contravention of this section in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be ordered. 22
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the RTA. It is defined in section 3 of the Harassment Act 1997. which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. In MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), the District Court held that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was 21 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. 22 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(3) and Schedule 1A. more appropriate in the context of the RTA than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The District Court held that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment is unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that, “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant claims the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment by: a. Being rude to them at the beginning of the tenancy about the firewood. b. Assaulting them with an oven door. c. Not redirecting their personal mail.
I discuss each allegation individually below. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by being rude to them when the tenant declined to remove the firewood at the beginning of the tenancy? Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord visited the premises at the beginning of the tenancy and asked the tenant to remove everything from under the house. The tenant claims the visit occurred on a Friday and the landlord wanted everything removed by Monday. The tenant claims they explained to the landlord that they were not physically fit to do the work in such a short timeframe and the landlord yelled at them “you do it! You have to do it!” The tenant claims the landlord’s voice got louder and louder as they repeatedly told the tenant to remove the stuff under the house. The tenant was shocked they were spoke to like this. The tenant claims the landlord then left.
The landlord denies this ever happened. Analysis
The tenant did not submit any evidence such as a video of the incident to support their version of events.
The landlord submitted copies of a text message they sent to the property manager advising them that a contractor would be visiting the premise to remove the items underneath the house. The landlord does not appear angry at having to hire a contractor in these messages, nor do they mention anything about the tenant refusing to clear under the house.
The tenant has not submitted enough evidence to convince me on the balance of probabilities the landlord ever yelled at them in the way claimed.
This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by assaulting them with an oven door? Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord assaulted them with the oven door by pulling it down hard. The tenant claims the door cut his finger, which bled. The tenant claims this occurred when the landlord visited the premises to inspect the second hand oven that was installed. The tenant claims the landlord was annoyed the tenant had complained about the second hand oven. The tenant claims the landlord yelled at them and as the tenant was pointing at something to do with the oven, the landlord pulled the door down and cut the tenant’s finger.
The landlord denies they ever intentionally hurt the tenant with the oven door. The landlord claims it was an accident. The landlord claims they were spoken to by the Police and no charges were ever laid. Analysis
The tenant claims the acting property manager was present and witnessed the alleged assault with the oven door. The landlord submitted an email sent by this property manager dated 22 March 2025. They state that the owner shut the oven door, which caught the tenant. Nothing is mentioned about whether they believed the act to be intentional or not.
The landlord called their own witness who was at the premises at the time however, they were not in the kitchen and did not witness the incident. They gave evidence that they heard raised voices, but were unable to comment on the incident, because they did not see it.
The tenant made a statement to the Police, but no charges were laid against the landlord.
The allegation made by the tenant against the landlord is serious. Something more than just a bare assertion of what the tenant claims happened is required. The tenant has not submitted enough evidence to convince me on the balance of probabilities the landlord intentionally hit them with the oven door.
This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by not organising their mail to be redirected? Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims they continued to receive the landlord’s mail after the tenancy began, which was annoying.
The landlord claims they organised for a redirection of their mail. Analysis
The tenant submitted photographs of some mail belonging to the landlord’s company that the tenant received. Whilst it might have been somewhat annoying for the tenant to receive the landlord’s mail, I am far from convinced this inconvenience reached the level of breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The tenant was still able to enjoy and use the premises as if they were their own.
This claim is dismissed.

Is the termination notice retaliatory?

The law

When determining whether a notice to end the tenancy is retaliatory, the Tribunal must consider the following matters: 23 a. Whether the notice to end the tenancy complies with section 51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U); 23 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 54. b. Whether the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy; and c. Whether the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord sent the tenant a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy on 3 February 2025. The tenant claims the notice was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant’s 14 day notices sent on: a. 15 February 2024 b. 18 February 2024 c. 18 April 2025 d. 27 November 2024
The tenant claims the landlord had no other reason to end the tenancy, because the tenant paid their rent on time and looked after the premises.
The landlord denies the termination notice is retaliatory. Analysis
The is a gap of approximately two and a half months between the date of the last 14-day notice sent on 27 November 2024 and the date the termination notice was sent on 3 February 2025. Whilst there is some proximity between these two dates, the termination notice has not been sent immediately after the latest 14-day notice.
The tenant sent three previous 14-day notices in February and April 2024 raising a total of 46 maintenance requests. If the termination notice was partly or wholly motivated by the tenant’s 14-day notices, I consider it more likely than not it would have been sent around this time. The landlord appears to have been happy to attend to most of the issues raised in the tenant’s 14-day notices. Plumbers, handymen and a building inspector were all sent to the premises to investigate a range of problems and complete repairs. The landlord does not appear to have been disturbed or frustrated by the tenant’s request for maintenance to be undertaken.
For these reasons, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was partly or wholly motivated to terminate the tenancy because of the tenant’s 14-day notices.
I decline to declare the termination notice retaliatory. Filing fee & name suppression
The tenant has been successful with some of their claims, but I do not think they have been substantially successful. Therefore, I do not order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant did not request name suppression on their written application and therefore, I do not order it.
The landlord requested name suppression on their written application, but they have not been wholly or substantially successful with their application. Therefore, I do not order suppression of the landlord’s name.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5165311 — net $925.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness (firewood	$100.00	154. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Compensation: Failure to maintain backdoor lock	$100.00	154. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Compensation: Failure to maintain showerhead	$180.00	Failure to maintain showerhead
Compensation: Failure to maintain carpet	$280.00	Failure to maintain carpet
Compensation: Failure to maintain toilet cistern	$100.00	154. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Compensation: Failure to maintain letterbox	$65.00	Failure to maintain letterbox
Compensation: Failure to maintain toilet pipe	$100.00	154. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Net award	$925.00
Bond	$2,280.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$925.00

Claims and awards for application 5165311 — net $925.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Failure to provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness (firewood

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 154. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.

Compensation: Failure to maintain backdoor lock

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 154. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.

Compensation: Failure to maintain showerhead

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain showerhead

Compensation: Failure to maintain carpet

Amount: $280.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain carpet

Compensation: Failure to maintain toilet cistern

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Tenant

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — TENANT’S CLAIMS Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness? The law
Healthy Homes Standards — Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? The law
Property Damage — Carpet Evidence and submissions of the parties

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Cleanliness Property damage

Order

Barfoot & Thompson Limited Highland Park As Agent For Kim, [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $925.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (5903210-001) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which took place over three days.
The tenancy began on 12 March 2021 and ended on 4 May 2025. The tenant claims the premises were not clean and tidy condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant also claims there were numerous maintenance issues that the landlord either failed to remedy or took too long to fix. Further, the tenant claims the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards and that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment by various means, including assaulting them with an oven door. On 3 February 2025, the landlord sent the tenant a notice terminating the tenancy. The tenant claims this termination notice was sent in response to 14-day notices the tenant sent the landlord. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord denies the tenant’s claims and asks the Tribunal to strike out these proceedings.
The issues I must determine are: a. Should the Tribunal strike out the tenant’s claims? b. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards? c. Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness? d. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? e. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? f. Is the termination notice retaliatory? Standard of proof
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
A lot of evidence and submissions were given at the hearing. Whilst this decision might not refer to all of it, the parties can be assured that I have considered it in reaching my decision. Compensation and exemplary damages: the law generally
The Tribunal may award compensation for losses arising from proven breaches of the tenancy agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 1 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages.
The usual approach of the Tribunal is to award one third of the maximum of exemplary damages unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 2 LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Should the Tribunal strike out these proceedings?

The law

The Tribunal may strike out, in whole or in part, a proceeding if satisfied that it: 3 a. Discloses no reasonable cause of action; or b. Is likely to prejudice or delay; or c. Is frivolous or vexatious; or d. Is otherwise an abuse of process.
The Tribunal exercises the power to strike out with great caution. This is because it involves depriving a party of accessibility to justice. There are few cases that will reach the threshold for strike out. 4
A claim discloses no reasonable cause of action if it so clearly untenable that it cannot succeed. 5 Examples include: 1 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 2 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 92A. 4 Scanlan v The Good Girls Property Management Limited, TT 4329138, 12 May 2022. 5 R Lucas & Son (Nelson Mail) Ltd v O’Brien [1978] 2 NZLR 289 (CA); Gartside v Sheffield, Young & Ellis [1983] NZLR 37 (CA). a. Where the claim is filed more than 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based. 6 b. Claims that fall outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. For example, disputes between tenants or between owners and property managers. c. Claims that ask for a remedy the Tribunal cannot give. For example, a tenant may ask the Tribunal to order the landlord to transfer them to another rental property owned by the landlord. This is not a remedy the Tribunal can award.
Examples of claims that are likely to cause prejudice or delay are those that are ill formed or where the applicant states that they will add further claims before the hearing.
In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, the Court of Appeal held that “a frivolous pleading is one which trifles with the court’s processes, whereas a vexatious one contains an element of impropriety.”
The Tribunal has described frivolous as meaning something “trifling, futile, not serious, silly.” It has described vexatious as meaning “not having sufficient grounds for action and seeking only to annoy, an action merely brought for the sake of annoyance or oppression.” 7
An abuse of process has been described as: 8 ...court proceedings may not be used or threatened for the purpose of obtaining for the person so using or threatening them some collateral advantage to himself, and not for the purpose for which such proceedings are properly designed and exist; and a party so using or threatening proceedings will be liable to be held guilty of abusing the process of the court and therefore disqualified from invoking the powers of the court proceedings he has abused.
Common examples of an abuse of process are: 9 a. Where a party seeks to reopen a dispute that has already been determined; or b. Where a party has failed to bring forward their whole case the first time and tries to reopen the same subject under a different heading. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 section 77(1) and Limitation Act 2010, section 11. 7 Wooton v Tavita TT 2069/92 8 January 1993. 8 In Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509 (HCA) at 528 and 536 the High Court of Australia adopted this statement of the principle by the English Court of Appeal in In re Majory [1955] CH 600 (CA) at 623 – 624. 9 Craig v Stringer [2020] NZCA 260 [26 June 2020] at [16] – [19]. Analysis
The tenant’s claim discloses a reasonable cause of action. It has been filed within time. The tenancy is one that falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and is not excluded under section 5 RTA. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages, which are remedies the Tribunal can order.
The tenant’s claim is not likely to cause prejudice or delay. A case conference was held on 10 March 2025 and the tenant clarified their claims. The landlord has been able to properly prepare a response and the tenant has not filed any further claims since the case conference. The tenant’s claim is lengthy, but it discloses a reasonable cause of action. Therefore, the likely delay in hearing the proceeding is justified.
The tenant’s claim is not frivolous or vexatious. Some of the tenant’s claims have merit and there are sufficient grounds for action. Certainly, all of the tenant’s claims are matters the Tribunal can properly adjudicate on. I am convinced the claim is made genuinely and the tenant believes there is a case to answer. I am not convinced the claim is frivolous or vexatious or has been brought with an improper motive.
The application is not an abuse of process. The tenant has not filed any previous proceedings against the landlord. This is not an attempt to reopen a matter that has already been determined.
For these reasons, the landlord’s application to strike out the proceedings is dismissed. TENANT’S CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

The law

The landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 10
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 11 It does not mean commercially clean, 12 spotless 13 or to a hotel or motel standard. 14 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 15 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(a). 11 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 12 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 13 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 14 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6].
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances other than facilities.” 16 Therefore, the obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness relates to the inside and outside of the premises. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises were not reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy for a number of reasons. These include: there was fly excrement on the light fittings, the oven was dirty, the rangehood in the kitchen was dirty, there was mould on the net curtains, there was dust on top of the kitchen cupboards, there was mould in the seals in the bathroom, the gutters were blocked and the lawns had weeds in them.
The tenant also claims that the landlord removed firewood from under the house when the ground moisture barrier was installed but did not organise for its disposal. The tenant claims the firewood remained in a pile on the premises and the tenant had to get rid of it themselves.
The landlord claims the premises were reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims the tenant asked to keep the firewood, which is why they instructed their contractor not to remove it. The landlord claims they should not be responsible for disposing of the firewood when the tenant asked to keep it. Analysis
I find the landlord provided the premises in a reasonably clean condition, with the exception of the pile of firewood that was not removed.
The tenant submitted approximately 22 photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. These are mostly close up photographs of various parts of the house and include: light fittings, the rubber seal in the bathroom shower glass, silicone, walls, gutters and a photograph of a pile of firewood.
The tenant’s photographs show some fly excrement on the light fittings, mould or grime in the rubber seal at the bottom of the shower glass, small dots of mould and some foliage is growing in a gutter outside.
The landlord submitted a copy of the entry inspection report, which contains over 100 photographs. The photographs in the entry report show the premises in a reasonably clean condition. No rubbish or personal belongings are present. The floors have been vacuumed and mopped. The surfaces have been wiped 15 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 16 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. down. The bathroom and kitchen have been cleaned. The inside of the oven is reasonably clean, and the lawns have been freshly mown.
I find the entry inspection report provides a more accurate account of the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy than the tenant’s photographs. This is because the entry report is more thorough. It contains over 100 photographs of the inside and outside of the premises, and includes close-up photographs, as well as those taken at a distance. I am better able to discern the overall state of the premises from the entry inspection report than the handful of close-up photographs submitted by the tenant.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord provided the inside of premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The landlord does not have to provide the premises in an immaculate or pristine condition, only a reasonably clean one. The fact that the seal on the shower glass in the bathroom had a small amount of mould or grim in it does not render the premises unreasonably clean. The same can be said about the presence of dust on top of cupboards and a small amount of foliage growing in a gutter.
The pile of firewood left outside the premises is a different story.
The premises have a fireplace. It is not included as a chattel on the tenancy agreement however, nothing is mentioned about the fact it cannot be used. The landlord only appears to have realised the fireplace could not be used on 20 March 2021 when it failed an inspection. Before this, the landlord organised for under the house to be cleared and a moisture barrier installed.
Various miscellaneous items and firewood were stored under the house. The landlord sent a text message to the property manager, advising that the firewood would be removed and if the tenant wanted to keep it, they would need to store it somewhere else. The landlord gave evidence that the tenant advised that they wanted to keep the firewood and therefore, the landlord asked their contractor not to dispose of it.
The landlord submitted an invoice dated 16 March 2021 from WC Electrical Ltd, which is the company that cleared under the house and installed a moisture barrier.
From this evidence, I find the firewood was removed from the house and stored in a pile outside the premises on 16 March 2021, which is the date of the invoice. At this time, the landlord and tenant both appear to have assumed that the fireplace was usable. I say this because shortly beforehand, the landlord asked the property manager to confirm with the tenant whether they wanted to keep the firewood. Whilst the tenant might have agreed to keep the firewood, this was on the assumption that the fireplace worked. Subsequently, on 20 March 2021, the fireplace failed an inspection and nothing was done to make it compliant. The tenant no longer needed the firewood and the landlord should have organised for its removal in these circumstances.
The firewood was stored in a pile on the outside of the premises on 20 March 2021, which is only 8 days after the tenancy began. By failing to remove it after discovering the fireplace was no longer usable, I find the landlord did not provide this part of the premises in a reasonably clean condition.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. The pile of firewood is relatively large. It must have been a bit of an eye sore to have had something that was useless stored in a pile outside the premises. I accept it was frustrating for the tenant to have had to organise the disposal of the firewood. The tenant gave evidence that a friend to picked it up and the tenant did not incur any cost.
Considering these factors, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $100.00 in compensation.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
All landlords had to comply with the healthy homes standards by 1 July 2025. Prior to this date, different timeframes for compliance applied to different tenancies.
Regulation 2(2) of Schedule 1 of the regulations states that tenancies that: a. Began or were renewed between 1 July 2021 and 28 August 2022 had 90 days to comply. b. Began or were renewed between 28 August 2022 and 3 March 2025 had 120 days to comply. c. Began or were renewed on a different date had until 1 July 2025 to comply. Analysis
The tenancy began on 12 March 2021 and was for a fixed-term ending on 11 March 2022. The fixed-term was not renewed and the tenancy became a periodic tenancy from 12 March 2022. If the fixed-term had been renewed for a further year after 11 March 2022, the landlord would have had to have complied with the healthy homes standards within 90 days however, this did not occur.
The tenancy began on 12 March 2021 and was not renewed between 1 July 2021 and 28 August 2022. Therefore, the landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The tenancy ended on 4 May 2025, which is before 1 July 2025.
The landlord was not required to comply with the healthy homes standards during the timeframe of this tenancy. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord 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.
It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and fix it. 17
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 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. 18 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 19
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 20
The tenant claims the landlord failed to fix numerous issues at the premises. I discuss each issue individually below. Burglar alarm 17 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 18 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 19 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 20 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the burglar alarm never worked, which was a concern to them, because they were previously burgled at their former address.
The landlord claims the burglar alarm has never worked and was intentionally not included as a chattel in the tenancy agreement. Analysis
The burglar alarm is not included as a chattel on the tenancy agreement. There appears to have been a deliberate decision not to include it, because it is listed as one of a number of potential chattels but has not been ticked.
No evidence was given that the landlord represented to the tenant that the premises came with a working burglar alarm. The tenant appears to have assumed this by its presence in the house however, it is not included as a chattel in the tenancy agreement.
A landlord does not have an obligation to maintain a chattel that does not form part of the tenancy. For this reason, this claim is dismissed. Backdoor lock Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims they noticed the backdoor lock was broken within the first 1 – 2 weeks of the tenancy. They claim they mentioned it to the property manager and the owner visited the premises to fix it. The tenant claims the repair was inadequate and the lock kept breaking, which they told the property manager about verbally. The first time the tenant raised the issue in writing was in a 14- day notice dated 15 February 2024. The tenant claims a locksmith fixed the lock between 15 – 27 February 2024.
The landlord denies the tenant ever raised the issue with them or the property manager until January 2024. The landlord claims they visited the premises to fix the lock and the repair was adequate. Notwithstanding this, the tenant continued to complain about the lock. Therefore, the landlord sent a locksmith to replace the lock. The landlord submitted an invoice dated 27 February 2024. Analysis
The landlord denies they were advised about the back door lock being broken early on in the tenancy or that they visited the premises around this time to try to fix it. The tenant has not submitted any evidence to support their claim that this occurred and therefore, I am not convinced it did. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue sometime in January 2024, which is what the landlord said.
The landlord claims that they visited the premises shortly becoming aware the lock was broken and fixed it. The landlord claims the repair was adequate however, I am not convinced it was. This is because the invoice from the locksmith states “replace the faulty back door lock.” It is unlikely the invoice would reference the lock being faulty if there was nothing wrong with it. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the lock was properly fixed on 27 February 2024.
There is a delay of approximately 4 weeks between January 2024 and 27 February 2024. A faulty lock is a security concern and can be fixed relatively quickly. Therefore, I find a delay of 4 weeks unreasonable.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to maintain the backdoor lock in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $25.00 per week to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have had regard to the security risk posed by an entry door into the premises not having a functioning lock. I have also had regard to the fact that the tenant is at home a lot because they do not work. This reduces the security risk.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $100.00. Showerhead Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the showerhead and showerhead holder were broken and would slide down the slide bar of the shower. The tenant claims a rubber band was provided to hold the showerhead and holder in place. Whilst the band prevented the showerhead and holder from sliding down, it was not strong enough to stabilise the shower head when the water was turned on. The tenant claims the showerhead spun as a result.
The tenant claims the landlord visited the premises on one occasion after the rubber band broke and replaced it with a new rubber band. The tenant claims this was not a suitable repair. The tenant also claims the landlord offered to replace the shower head on another occasion, but the pressure on the replacement showerhead was too low. The tenant described the replacement shower head as akin to a baby shower.
The tenant claims they brought the issue up with the property manager verbally a number of times and in writing for the first time on 15 February 2024 in a 14- day notice. The tenant claims the problem was not properly fixed until February 2024, just before the 14-day notice was sent.
The landlord accepts the showerhead holder would slide down the slide bar and was held in place by a rubber band at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims the showerhead was too heavy for the holder and the rubber band was an adequate repair.
The landlord claims they offered to fix the problem approximately 2 – 3 years ago by replacing the showerhead with a lighter showerhead, which the tenant declined. The landlord claims they tried to find a stronger showerhead holder to hold the shower head but were unable to do so. The landlord claims they were only able to find a holder that was strong enough in January 2024, which is when the problem was fixed. Analysis
I find the landlord was aware of the state of disrepair of the showerhead and showerhead holder at the beginning of the tenancy. They gave evidence that they knew about the problem at the beginning of the tenancy. Whether the tenant complained about it or not is irrelevant. A landlord has an obligation to investigate and remedy a defect they are aware of.
The landlord submitted a photograph of the type of showerhead they claim they offered as a replacement. The water is turned on and the pressure appears adequate. The tenant denies this is the type of showerhead that was offered but did not submit any photographs of the showerhead they claim the landlord offered as a replacement. The only showerheads I am aware of that are used for babies are made of rubber and attach to taps. I find it unlikely the landlord would have offered to replace the showerhead with something of this nature.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord offered to replace the showerhead with a showerhead like the one shown in the photograph. The pressure appears adequate, and I accept the landlord’s evidence that this would most likely have fixed the problem, because it was lighter than the showerhead that was installed.
The tenant cannot remember when the landlord offered to replace the showerhead. The landlord claims it was around 2 – 3 years ago, which is 2022 – 2023.
The tenancy began on 11 March 2021. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord offered to replace the showerhead in 2022. The tenant declined the replacement and in doing so, I find the tenant contributed to a further delay in repair between 2022 – January/February 2024, when the showerhead holder was replaced. In these circumstances, I consider the landlord should only be responsible for the delay between 11 March 2021 and 2022, which is approximately 9 months.
A shower is used daily. If it is not working properly, it is likely to be a cause of frustration and detract from the amenity of the premises. I find a delay of approximately 9 months to offer an appropriate remedy to the problem unreasonable. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to maintain the showerhead and holder in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $20.00 per month to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have had regard to the fact the tenant was still able to use the shower. They found it annoying needing to move it up or down the sliding rail or point it in a specific direction.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $180.00. Benchtop leaking into kitchen cupboards Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the kitchen smelt bad early on in the tenancy. The tenant claims they looked inside the cupboards underneath the sink and noticed water was leaking from the benchtop. The tenant claims the landlord applied silicone to the top of the kitchen bench, but it should have been applied underneath inside the cupboards. Further, the tenant claims the job was done poorly, because the landlord did not use non-mould silicone, applied the silicone 10mm wide and left silicone on the bench. The tenant claims this was a health hazard when preparing food. The tenant could not recall when the landlord applied the silicone, but claims the issue was not properly fixed until early March 2024 when the plumber visited the premises.
The landlord claims they applied silicone to the top of the bench which is the appropriate place to prevent water from leaking down into the cupboards below. The landlord claims they used food grade silicone and did a professional job. The landlord is an electrician and claims they have extensive experience using silicone. To appease the tenant, the landlord organised for a plumber to replace the silicone on 10 March 2024. Analysis
Neither party gave evidence about when the tenant first raised the issue about water leaking into the kitchen cupboards with the landlord or when the landlord responded by visiting the premises and applying silicone. Notwithstanding this, I find the landlord most likely responded within a reasonable timeframe, as the tenant’s claim focused on the adequacy of the repair completed by the landlord, rather than the length of time it took.
The tenant did not submit any photographs of the silicone applied by the landlord. In the absence of any photographs, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities it was applied poorly. The landlord is a professional electrician and I accept their evidence that they are familiar with how to use silicone.
I reject the tenant’s claim that the silicone should have been applied underneath the kitchen cupboards, not on top of the kitchen bench. The tenant is not a qualified builder, electrician or plumber. They are unable to give this kind of expert evidence. I accept the landlord’s evidence that silicone is generally applied on top of the kitchen bench along the outer edges where it meets the wall.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the repair completed by the landlord was inadequate. The landlord responded to the issue within a reasonable time of becoming aware of it.
This claim is dismissed. Laundry cupboards Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the paint was falling off around the edges of the supertub in the laundry. The tenant also claims the door was swollen and peeling paint.
The landlord claims the supertub is dated and the missing paint is a result of fair wear and tear over time. The landlord submits the issue is minor and did not require repair. Analysis
The tenant submitted a photograph of the laundry supertub. It is dated and a very small amount of paint has worn off around the top. Similarly, very small amounts of paint have come off the supertub at the top part of where the door closes.
I agree with the landlord that the issue is minor and consistent with fair wear and tear over time. It is not significant. Any kind of reduction to the visual amenity of the premises is likely to have been extremely minimal. Even if the cupboard door was slightly swollen as claimed by the tenant, the overall usability of the supertub was not affected.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced this was a defect that required repair. For this reason, this claim is dismissed. Mould in the rubber seal of the shower glass and silicone in the bathroom Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the rubber seal at the bottom of the shower glass was mouldy, as well as the silicone in the bathroom, especially around the vanity. The tenant claims this was a health hazard because their son placed their contacts on top of the vanity.
The tenant claims they raised the issue with the landlord verbally at the beginning of the tenancy and for the first time in writing in the 14-day notice dated 15 February 2024. The tenant claims the rubber seal in the shower glass was never fixed and the silicone in the bathroom was replaced in March 2024.
The landlord denies the tenant ever brought up these issues verbally and the first time the landlord became aware of them was on 15 February 2024 in the 14-day notice.
The landlord claims the mould in the rubber seal at the bottom of the shower glass is minimal and not a big issue. The landlord denies the silicone in the bathroom was as bad as the tenant claims. Nevertheless, to appease the tenant, the landlord organised for all of the silicone in the bathroom to be replaced in March 2024. An invoice from the plumber was submitted. Analysis
The landlord submitted a photograph of the rubber seal at the bottom of the shower glass. Some mould/grime is present, but it is minimal. It is not uncommon for cracks and crevices in a bath/shower to attract some mould or grime as a result of everyday living over time. No evidence about the rubber seal being broken was submitted. The tenant claims it was unsanitary, because the mould/grime would run when the shower was turned on. No photographs of this were submitted and I consider it unlikely that this happened as the mould/grime is minimal and enclosed within the rubber seal.
The invoice from the plumber confirms a glass specialist is required to remove the entire glass panel and change the rubber seal. The rubber seal cannot easily be replaced. Removing the entire glass panel is a big job for what is a very minor issue.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the rubber seal on the bottom of the shower glass was in a reasonable state of repair and did not require any further action.
I reach the same conclusion in respect of the silicone in the bathroom. The tenant submitted some close up photographs from around the bath and vanity. A small amount of mould is present in the silicone.
The landlord has a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their age and character. The premises were not brand new and have some age to them. A small amount of mould on part of the silicone around the bath and vanity is not unreasonable for a house of this age. On the balance of probabilities, I find the silicone in the bathroom was in a reasonable state of repair and did not require replacement. Notwithstanding this, the landlord replaced the silicone on 10 March 2024 and submitted an invoice from the plumber. This is within a reasonable timeframe after the tenant’s 14-day notice sent on 15 February 2024.
For these reasons, this claim is dismissed. Skirting board in the kitchen Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims part of the skirting in the kitchen was detached and was a tripping hazard. Analysis
The tenant submitted a photograph of the skirting board. The amount of skirting that is detached from the wall is minimal and the extent of the detachment is minor. It is certainly not detached enough to pose a tripping hazard.
The landlord has a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their age and character. The premises are not new. They are dated and the skirting board has most likely become a little bit loose over time due to everyday living. The state of the skirting board is commensurate with the age and character of the premises. This was not a defect that required repair.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced the landlord failed to maintain the skirting board in a reasonable state of repair. For this reason, this claim is dismissed. Carpet Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the carpet was loose and needed re-stretching. The tenant claims there were rolls in the carpet that created a tripping hazard. The tenant claims they raised the issue with the landlord verbally early on in the tenancy and for the first time in writing in the 14-day notice dated 15 February 2024.
The landlord accepts there is a wave in the carpet in the hallway, but claims overall it is in a reasonable condition. The landlord claims the tenant first brought the issue to their attention on 15 February 2024 in the 14-day notice. Analysis
Photographs of the carpet were submitted by the tenant. It is patterned and appears old. There are a number of waves in the carpet in the hallway. The landlord’s inspection report dated 20 August 2024 also notes that the carpet has ripples and may need stretching out. This evidence convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the carpet was in an unreasonable state of repair.
The inspection report notes the carpet is in average condition. This does not alter my finding that it needed to be stretched. The photographs are strong evidence this needed to occur.
The carpet does not appear rippled in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware that the carpet needing stretching on 15 February 2024. The landlord denies the tenant discussed the issue with them beforehand verbally and no evidence to support this was submitted.
The carpet remained in the same condition until the end of the tenancy, which is a period of approximately 14 months. The landlord was dealing with a number of other maintenance requests by the tenant at the time and understandably needed to prioritise repairs. Notwithstanding this, I still consider a delay of 14 months to be unreasonable.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to maintain the carpet in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $20.00 per month to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have had regard to the extent of the problem as shown in the photographs.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $280.00. Back steps Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the backdoor concrete steps were painted and slippery. They claim they raised the issue with the landlord verbally early on in the tenancy and for the first time in writing in the 14-day notice dated 15 February 2024.
The landlord installed grip tape on the steps, but this repair was inadequate. The tenant claims the tape is too thick and causes water to pool on the steps, which makes them slippery.
The landlord claims the paint on the concrete steps is not high gloss and is appropriate paint for outdoors. The landlord denies the tenant raised the issue verbally before the 14-day notice dated 15 February 2025. The landlord claims the grip tape used is adequate and is only 0.5mm thick. The landlord disputes the claim it caused water to pool. Analysis
It is common for outdoor concrete to be painted. The fact that the back steps were painted does not raise any alarm. No expert evidence was submitted by the tenant confirming that the type of paint used was inappropriate. I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities this was the case.
The landlord denies the tenant raised the issue with them verbally early on in the tenancy. No supporting evidence was submitted to confirm this was the case and I am not convinced it was. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the steps being slippery on 15 February 2024 when the 14-day notice was issued.
I am convinced the repair completed by the landlord was adequate. The landlord submitted an invoice from KRPro Services Ltd dated 27 February 2024. It records that grit tape was installed on the steps. Photographs of the steps with the tape on them were submitted. The tape does not seem thick and the job looks to have been professionally completed.
The tenant did not submit any photographs of the steps with pooling water. I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tape caused this issue or that the repair was inadequate.
The landlord remedied the problem within 12 days of being made aware of it. This is a reasonable timeframe.
This claim is dismissed. Oven Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the control panel on the oven broke and the landlord completed a temporary repair by screwing it back together and applying silicone. The tenant claims the landlord purchased a second-hand oven, which was in poor condition and not usable. The tenant claims it took three weeks before a new oven was purchased an installed.
The landlord claims the oven broke on 22 January 2024 and they immediately visited the premises to complete a temporary repair. The landlord purchased a second-hand oven, which was installed on 4 February 2024. A new oven was installed on 16 February 2024. Analysis
The tenant submitted a copy of a text message they sent to the landlord on 22 January 2024 about the broken control panel on the oven. I find this to be the date the landlord first became aware of the issue.
The landlord purchased and installed a second hand replacement oven on 4 February 2024, two weeks later. Unfortunately, the second hand oven had some problems, including that the bottom tray/drawer was broken. The tenant submitted a photograph of this.
The landlord submitted a receipt for the purchase of a new oven for $549.00 on 16 February 2024. I find this to be the date the new oven was installed.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord made attempts to investigate and remedy the broken oven within a reasonable timeframe. It was reasonable for them to try to replace the oven with a second hand one in the first instance to try to minimise their loss. Also, the oven provided at the beginning of the tenancy was not new. The landlord purchased and installed the second hand oven within two weeks of receiving notice that the original oven was broken. The landlord purchased and installed a new oven within four days of receiving notice that the second hand oven had defects.
I find the landlord investigated and remedied the broken oven within a reasonable timeframe.
This claim is dismissed. Toilet cistern Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the toilet cistern fell off one day while they were out. They cannot remember when this occurred. The tenant claims the landlord visited the premises and put a plank of wood against the wall to attach the cistern to. The tenant claims the repair did not look very nice and it took 9 – 12 months before a plumber visited the premises, removed the plank of wood and reattached the cistern properly.
The landlord claims the toilet cistern fell off approximately three years ago. The landlord claims they responded immediately and installed a piece of wood on the wall to attach the cistern to. The landlord claims the tenant only expressed dissatisfaction with the repair on 15 February 2024 in the 14-day notice. A plumber visited the premises, removed the piece of wood and attached the cistern to the wall shortly thereafter. The landlord submitted an invoice from the plumber dated 3 March 2024.
The landlord claims that they fixed the problem properly and despite the plumber’s work, the landlord needs to reinstall the piece of wood. Analysis
The tenant cannot remember when the toilet cistern fell from the wall. The landlord claims it happened approximately three years ago. On the balance of probabilities, I find it happened in 2022.
I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord responded quickly when the tenant first reported the issue. Both parties gave consistent evidence on this.
The parties gave differing evidence about the nature of the repair. The tenant claims it was temporary and the landlord claims it was permanent. The tenant claims the repair worked to hold the cistern in place, but it did not look very nice.
Photographs of the repair completed by the landlord were submitted. These show a small piece of wood behind the toilet cistern. The paint job has not been completed properly. The wood only has a thin layer of paint on it and the wall above the cistern is patchy with drip marks. On the balance of probabilities, I find the repair completed by the landlord is properly classified as a temporary repair. I also find the problem was not properly fixed until around 3 March 2024 when the plumber visited the premises.
I disagree with the landlord’s claim that they properly fixed the issue and despite the efforts of the plumber, the landlord needs to return to the premises to reinstall the piece of wood. The invoice notes that the plumber secured the cistern to the wall with hollow wall anchors. These are a special type of tool used to securely mount objects to walls made of hollow material such as drywall or plasterboard.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord was aware of the state of repair of the toilet cistern in 2022 when they completed the temporary repair. The toilet cistern was not properly fixed until around 3 March 2024, which is a period of approximately 2 years. I find this delay unreasonable.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to maintain the toilet cistern in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $100.00 to be reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have had regard to the fact that the temporary repair was functionally adequate and the main concern for the tenant was the fact it did not look nice. Letterbox
The tenant claims the letterbox flap broke and their mail got wet when it rained. The tenant claims they notified the landlord verbally approximately halfway through the tenancy and again in the 14-day notice dated 15 February 2024. The tenant claims the landlord fixed the problem by replacing the letterbox shortly before the tenancy ended.
The landlord denies the tenant ever raised the issue with them verbally and claims they first learnt about it on 15 February 2024. The landlord claims it is not unusual for some water to get into a letterbox and a replacement letterbox was installed on 29 March 2025. Analysis
The tenant submitted a photograph of the letterbox. The flap on the back is broken and falling off. This was an issue that required repair.
The landlord denies the tenant raised the problem with them verbally halfway through the tenancy. In the absence of any corroborating evidence confirming this was the case, I am not convinced it was. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue on 15 February 2024.
The problem was fixed on 29 March 2025. The landlord submitted a receipt for the purchase of a new letterbox, which is dated 29 March 2025. I find this to be the date the landlord replaced the letterbox.
There is a delay of just over one year between when the landlord became aware of the issue and when the repair was completed. I accept the tenant had raised numerous other, more pressing maintenance issues that required attention. Notwithstanding this, I still find a delay of just over one year unreasonable.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord failed to maintain the letterbox in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I consider $5.00 per month to be reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have had regard to the fact that dealing with wet mail was not an issue the tenant most likely dealt with every day.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $65.00. Backdoor taps
The tenant claims the backdoor tap leaked and fell off. The tenant claims it leaked when it was not turned on and increased once it was turned on. The tenant claims they raised the problem verbally with the landlord within the first year of the tenancy and for the first time in writing on 15 February 2024. The tenant accepts the problem was fixed but cannot remember when.
The landlord denies the backdoor tap leaked when not turned on. The landlord accepts it leaked a little bit when turned on but claims this is not a big issue. The landlord denies the tenant brought the issue to their attention verbally one year into the tenancy and claims the first time they were alerted to the problem was 15 February 2024.
The landlord submitted an invoice from a plumber dated 10 March 2024. Analysis
I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the backdoor tap leaked when turned on, but not when it was turned off. This is because the plumber’s invoice states “replaced external hose tap that was leaking when turned on and hard to operate.”
The landlord denies the tenant alerted them to the problem verbally approximately one year into the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence confirming this was the case, I am not convinced it was. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue on 15 February 2024 with the 14-day notice.
The invoice from the plumber is dated 10 March 2024, which is when the problem was fixed. That is a period of approximately 3 weeks, which is a reasonable timeframe. The problem was not major and the landlord needed to prioritise the many maintenance requests made by the tenant at the time.
I am not convinced the landlord failed to maintain the outdoor tap in a reasonable state of repair.
This claim is dismissed. Backdoor hinges Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims rivets were installed in the hinges of the backdoor instead of screws. The tenant also claims some were missing and the door was risk of falling off. The tenant claims they alerted the landlord to the problem verbally around 2022 and for the first time in writing in the 14-day notice dated 15 February 2024.
The landlord claims the first time the tenant alerted them to the issue was in the 14-day notice and the problem was fixed on 27 February 2024. Analysis
The landlord denies the tenant alerted them to the problem verbally approximately one year into the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence confirming this was the case, I am not convinced it was. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue when the tenant sent them the 14-day notice on 15 February 2024.
The landlord submitted an invoice from the locksmith dated 27 February 2024, which proves the problem was fixed on this date.
It took the landlord 12 days to fix the problem, which I find to be a reasonable timeframe.
This claim is dismissed. Garage gutters Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the garage gutters had rust holes in them. The tenant claims they alerted the landlord to the problem verbally at the beginning of the tenancy and for the first time in writing in a 14-day notice dated 18 February 2024. The tenant cannot remember when the problem was fixed, but claims it took a long time.
The landlord claims they were first alerted to the problem on 18 February 2024 when they received the 14-day notice. The landlord claims they tried to fix the problem themselves in May 2024, but were denied access by the tenant. The landlord claims the problem was fixed sometime in July 2024. Analysis
The entry inspection photographs show the beginnings of rust on the garage gutters however, the problem does not appear to have been at the point where remediation was required. I say this because there is only a very small hole present.
The tenant submitted photographs which are not dated. These show the hole in guttering has increased in size. Rust appears to have eaten away at the guttering and the problem is at a point where repair is required.
The landlord denies the tenant alerted them to the issue verbally early on in the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence confirming this was the case, I am not convinced it was. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue when the tenant sent the 14-day notice dated 18 February 2024.
The tenant cannot remember when the problem was fixed, whereas the landlord can. They state it was fixed sometime in July 2024. On the balance of probabilities, I find the problem was fixed in July 2024.
There is a delay of approximately 4 – 5 months between the date the landlord became aware of the problem and the date it was fixed. I do not consider this delay unreasonable. This is because the landlord was responding to more than 20 maintenance issues the tenant had raised in 14-day notices sent on 15 and 18 February 2024. The state of the garage gutter was less of a concern than some of the other claims around the structural integrity of the premises and water ingress.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to maintain the garage gutters in a reasonable state of repair.
This claim is dismissed. Dampness and efflorescence in the garage and under the house Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the garage and under the house were damp all year round, especially in winter. The tenant claims efflorescence developed in these areas, which proves dampness was a problem. The tenant also claims the efflorescence corroded their tools and other items stored in the garage and under the house.
The tenant claims they alerted the landlord to this issue verbally throughout the tenancy and for the first time in writing on 18 February 2024 in a 14-day notice.
The landlord claims the house and garage are not damp. The landlord claims the premises were built in the 1960’s and it is normal for there to be some calcification on the brickwork. Analysis
Photographs of the garage and under the house were submitted by both parties. Efflorescence is present in these areas however, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that this means the garage and under the house were unreasonably damp. The tenant is not a qualified builder and cannot give this kind of expert evidence. The tenant submitted some extracts from the internet that discuss efflorescence. These extracts state things such as: Efflorescence is not dangerous, but it can lead to moisture problems causing structural damage to building materials.
The tenant did not refer to the author of these internet materials or what qualifications they have. Further, these comments are made about efflorescence generally and have not been given in direct response to the efflorescence that was present at the premises. For these reasons, I attach very little weight to these internet materials evidence.
The landlord submitted a building inspection report dated 14 May 2024. The report has been completed by an appropriately qualified building inspector with over 25 years practical building experience in New Zealand and overseas. Therefore, I consider the contents of the report to be reliable and accurate. The report notes: Generally, the subfloor and timber elements appear to have been well constructed and are currently in good condition for their type and age. The subfloor was reasonably dry and well ventilated at the time of inspection through the use of grill type base vents installed in the base cladding. A moisture barrier and under floor insulation has been installed. ... There is some efflorescence visible to the face of the brick foundation walls, efflorescence is the white, grey, brown or yellow deposit that often forms on the surface of concrete, plaster, brick word, stone and concrete masonry. These deposits usually done affect the performance of the material – they’re confined to the surface and can be removed if they are considered unsightly. Efflorescence is caused by soluble salts being brought to the surface by liquid water. The salts maybe compounds of calcium, sodium or potassium. The efflorescence visible has occurred over a long period of time, due to moisture slowly seeping through the brick walls and is not considered to affect the structural integrity of the walls themselves. ... The current exterior finished ground levels are more than satisfactory to prevent any moisture ingress by means of capillary action. There is adequate height separation between the exterior finished ground levels and internal finished floor levels. ... The garage appears to have been well constructed with only minor signs of stress movement, and there is some efflorescence visible to the surface of the garage floor. All [internal moisture] readings returned figures between 22 – 48 indicating there was no excessive moisture present in the internal framing in the areas tested at the time of inspection... .. In conclusion, it is our professional opinion that the dwelling is generally sound and of good construction, methods and workmanship, subject to comments on remedial work.
The contents of the building inspection report convince me on the balance of probabilities that the presence of efflorescence in the garage and under the house has most likely developed over time and is not a cause for concern. The report does not state that the garage or under the house are unreasonably damp. It concludes that there are sufficient systems in place to prevent water entering under the house. Similarly, the inside of the house did not return any concerning moisture level readings. Overall, it assesses the premises as being “generally sound and of good construction.”
The tenant claims the efflorescence ate away at their tools. The tenant submitted some photographs of nails that were rusted, but other photographs show a large amount of items were stored in the garage by the tenant and appeared to be in good condition.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the garage or under the house were unreasonably damp or that the presence of efflorescence was an issue that needed to be remedied.
This claim is dismissed. Mould in the house Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the house had a lot of mould in it. The tenant claims mould was an issue since the beginning of the tenancy and they advised the landlord about it verbally, over text message, and in a 14-day notice dated 18 February 2024.
The landlord accepts that the bedroom on the southside of the premises sometimes accrued mould in a small area on the ceiling. The landlord claims this is because the southside does not attract as much sunlight as the rest of the house. The landlord claims they provided the tenant with a dehumidifier and suggested they ventilate this bedroom, as well as clean it more regularly than other areas of the house.
The landlord denies there was an issue with extensive mould in the premises. Analysis
A small amount of mould inside a premises is not unusual or a cause for major concern. Mould sometimes develops in winter when conditions are likely to be more damp and the premises are not ventilated as frequently as they may be in summer.
The tenant submitted photographs of some mould inside the premises. The mould does not appear to be black mould and it is nowhere near the level of seriousness the Tribunal sees in some cases. The photographs submitted are taken close up and show small spots of mould on a wall. Other photographs show some mould inside a cupboard.
The landlord submitted copies of routine inspection reports dated 5 April 2023, 24 July 2023, 30 October 2023, 20 August 2024,19 November 2024 and 18 February 2025. These reports contain hundreds of photographs inside the premises. There are no concerning photographs of mould in any of these reports. The only mention of mould is in the report dated 19 November 2024. The landlord notes that some mould was present in the bedroom on the southside. The landlord notes the tenant advised they last cleaned it 6 months prior, and the landlord advised them they needed to clean it more regularly, because it is south facing.
I prefer the evidence contained in the routine inspections over the tenant’s own photographs. This is because the photographs in the routine inspections are more thorough. They contain hundreds of photographs inside the premises over a long period of time. In contrast, the tenant has only provided a handful of photographs, most of which are close up photographs and none of which are dated. No concerning mould can be seen in any of the photographs from the routine inspections.
The building inspection does not note any issues with high moisture readings inside the premises, which usually go hand in hand with mould issues. Nothing is mentioned about mould either.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced there was a problem with extensive mould inside the premises. The tenant has not proven this was an issue that required remediation.
This claim is dismissed. Decomposing wood under the house Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims that all of the firewood under the house was not properly cleared before the moisture barrier was installed. As a result, the tenant claims the remaining firewood got damp, rotten and made the house smell bad.
The landlord claims under the house was cleared properly before the moisture barrier was installed. Analysis
The landlord submitted an invoice dated 23 March 2021 from WC Electrical Ltd. It states “light rubbish removal, ground prep and installation of ground vapour barrier.”
The tenant submitted one photograph of the moisture barrier lifted up. A single twig is present. This is far from sufficient evidence to convince me on the balance of probabilities that damp, rotting wood permeated the floor upon which the moisture barrier covered.
Nothing is mentioned about the house smelling badly in any of the routine inspections.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced there was damp, rotting wood underneath the moisture barrier that caused the house to smell.
This claim is dismissed. Ants Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims there was a problem with ants at the premises. The tenant claims they keep a clean and tidy house and therefore, the presence of ants was due to a problem with the premises.
The landlord denies there was an infestation of ants and claims it is not unusual for ants to appear from time to time. Analysis
I agree with the comments of the landlord about the presence of ants. Sometimes they appear inside a premises, regardless of how clean and tidy a person lives.
In the majority of cases, the presence of ants is not something for the landlord to respond to. A tenant can easily manage the problem themselves by purchasing ant killer from the supermarket. The situation might be different if an ant colony developed on the ground outside the premises, but no evidence to this effect was submitted.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced there was a significant problem with ants at the premises that the landlord needed to remedy.
This claim is dismissed. Lack of silicone around the bath filler in the bathroom Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the bath filler did not have silicone around it and water would seep into the wall when the shower was turned on. The tenant claims they raised this issue with the landlord verbally at the beginning of the tenancy and for the first time in writing on 18 April 2024 in a 14-day notice.
The landlord claims the lack of silicone in this area was not a problem however, to appease the tenant, they organised for a plumber to install some silicone within 14 days after receiving the tenant’s notice sent on 18 April 2024. Analysis
The tenant is not a qualified builder or plumber. Therefore, I attach very little weight to their claim that the bath filler needed silicone around it.
The landlord denies the tenant brought the issue to their attention verbally at the beginning of the tenancy. In the absence of any corroborating evidence confirming otherwise, I am not convinced this was the case. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue on 18 April 2024 in the 14-day notice. A plumber visited the premises within 14 days of this date and fixed the problem. Therefore, the problem was remedied within a reasonable timeframe.
For these reasons, this claim is dismissed. Bathroom vanity Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the cupboard in the bathroom vanity was mouldy. The tenant also claims the bathroom vanity was not installed correctly and was unlevel. The tenant claims this caused water to pool at the back of the vanity and caused the silicone to become mouldy. Further, the tenant claims there is no silicone at the base of the tap.
The tenant claims they notified the landlord about this issue verbally, but could not remember when. They raised it in writing for the first time in the 14-day notice dated 18 April 2024.
The landlord claims there is nothing wrong with the vanity or cupboard. Analysis
No photographs of the vanity cupboard were submitted. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities the cupboard was mouldy.
The tenant is not a qualified builder and therefore, I attach very little weight to their claim that the vanity was not installed properly and the tap needed silicone at its base. A photograph of the vanity was submitted by the tenant. Nothing stands out from the photograph alone as indicating the vanity was not installed properly. Expert evidence from an appropriately qualified builder is required to support the tenant’s claim, which the tenant has not produced.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities the bathroom vanity was installed incorrectly, was not level or required silicone at the base of the tap.
This claim is dismissed. Patio door lock Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the patio door lock was loose and did not work properly. The tenant claims they advised the landlord about the problem verbally and for the first time in writing in a 14-day notice dated 18 April 2024. The tenant claims the problem was fixed at the same time as the backdoor lock.
The landlord claims the tenant never raised the issue with them verbally and they first learnt about it was in the 14-day notice dated 18 April 2024. Analysis
The landlord denies the tenant alerted them to this issue verbally before 18 April 2024. In the absence of any corroborating evidence confirming this was the case, I am not convinced it was. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue on 18 April 2024 when the tenant sent the 14-day notice. By this date, the problem had already been fixed according to the tenant’s own evidence. The tenant claims they asked the locksmith to fix the patio door lock at the same time the backdoor lock was fixed. The backdoor lock was fixed on 27 February 2024 per the invoice from the locksmith.
By the time the landlord became aware of the issue with the patio door lock, it had already been fixed. The landlord was not given a reasonable opportunity to investigate and repair the problem upon becoming aware of it. For this reason, this claim is dismissed. Kitchen cupboards Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the hinges kept falling off the kitchen cupboards. Whilst the landlord completed repairs, the tenant claims the replacement hinges were too small and not strong enough to support the kitchen cupboards.
The tenant claims they raised the issue with the landlord verbally many times and for the first time in writing on 18 April 2024 in a 14-day notice. The tenant claims the problem was not fixed until just before the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims a handyman fixed the kitchen hinges on 18 December 2024 and submitted an invoice. Analysis
The landlord denies the tenant alerted them to the state of the kitchen cupboards verbally before 18 April 2024. In the absence of any corroborating evidence confirming this was the case, I am not convinced it was. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue on 18 April 2024.
The landlord completed an inspection on 20 August 2024 and the inspection report notes that the kitchen cupboard hinges need repairing. There is a photograph of one of the cupboards with the hinge detached.
The landlord submitted an invoice from KRPro Services Ltd dated 18 December 2024. Is records the hinges were adjusted on this date. On the balance of probabilities, I find the issue was fixed on 18 December 2024.
There is a delay of approximately 8 months between the date the landlord first became aware of the issue and the date it was remedied. At this stage, the landlord had received three 14-day notices from the tenant listing a total of 45 issues that apparently needed repair. Some of the issues complained about were serious such as, allegations the premises were structurally unsound, had shifted and were damp. The landlord understandably prioritised these matters over the kitchen cabinets. Ordinarily, I would consider a delay of 8 months to fix kitchen cabinets unreasonable however, in this context, I find the delay reasonable.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced the landlord failed to maintain the kitchen cabinets in a reasonable state of repair.
This claim is dismissed. Front patio Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the plastic roof on the front patio was loose and would flap about in the wind. On one occasion, the tenant claims parts of the plastic broke off in strong winds. They submitted a copy of a text message sent to the landlord on 3 August 2021 with a photograph. The landlord repaired the roofing themselves, but the tenant claims the repair was inadequate. The tenant claims the purlins were loose and cross-bracing was required.
The landlord claims the patio was in a reasonable condition. Further, the landlord claims they repaired the plastic roof in a timely manner and the repair was adequate. Analysis
The tenant is not a qualified builder. Therefore, I attach very little weight to their comments about the structural integrity of the patio or the state of the purlins.
The tenant submitted some photographs of the patio however, in the absence of an expert witness to comment on these photographs, I am unable to draw any conclusions.
The building inspection report submitted by the landlord states that the patio is in a reasonable condition, although notes it would be prudent to install some bracing.
The tenant bares the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that the patio was in an unreasonable state of repair following the landlord’s restoration of the roof. In the absence of any expert evidence, I am not convinced this was the case.
This claim is dismissed. Rainwater running under the house Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims water ran under the house. The tenant claims this created efflorescence and caused rising damp. The tenant claims they asked the landlord many times to visit the premises when it was raining, but this never occurred.
The tenant claims the Auckland Council visited the premises and completed an inspection. The tenant claims the Auckland Council advised there were maintenance issues with the premises. In particular, the foundations were not in a good condition.
The landlord claims they have not had any issues with the Auckland Council in relation to the premises. The landlord claims if a little bit of water went under the house, this is not unusual. Analysis
The tenant submitted a lot of photographs to support this claim, but I do not find them helpful. All they show is water on the ground. No evidence from the Council was submitted and I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the Council have any serious concerns about the premises.
The tenant is not a qualified builder and therefore, I attach very little weight to their own evidence about water running under the house.
The only expert evidence is the building inspection report. It notes that the exterior ground levels “are more than satisfactory to prevent any moisture ingress by means of capillary action.” This evidence suggests it is highly unlikely that water would run under the house.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that water ran under the house. The tenant has not proven this was an issue that required repair.
This claim is dismissed. Blocked drains Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the drains on both sides of the garage were blocked. The tenant claims they alerted the landlord to the problem, but could not remember when. The tenant claims they mentioned it for the first time in writing in a 14-day notice dated 18 April 2024. The tenant claims the landlord sent a plumber over before this date to try to fix the issue, but the repair did not work.
The landlord claims a plumber was sent the premises on 15 and 25 March 2024. They plunged and hydro blasted the drains, which fixed the problem. Analysis
Neither party can remember when the tenant first advised the landlord of the blocked drains in the garage for the first time. This makes it difficult for me to assess whether the landlord acted within a reasonable timeframe to investigate and remedy the problem.
The landlord submitted an invoice from Tibbits Plumbing & Maintenance Specialists dated 26 March 2024. It confirms that they visited the premises twice on 15 and 25 March 2024 in relation to the garage drains. The drains were plunged on the first visit, but a recommendation for a hydro blast was made. The drains were hydro blasted on 25 March 2024 and the invoice notes it cleared up to 4 metres of the stormwater drain.
The landlord has submitted evidence to suggest that the problem was fixed after the two visits from the plumber. The tenant claims this was not the case however, no expert evidence confirming the same was submitted.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord investigated and remedied the blocked drains within a reasonable timeframe. I am not convinced that the issue persisted after the plumber’s second visit.
This claim is dismissed. Toilet pipe Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims there was a patch of grass that was constantly wet in summer and winter. The tenant claims they raised the issue with the landlord verbally at the beginning of the tenancy, but nothing was done. The tenant claims the house dropped and put pressure on the underground toilet pipe, causing it to crack and leak. The tenant claims they alerted the landlord in writing for the first time on 18 April 2024 in a 14-day notice and the problem was not fixed until just before the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the first time the tenant raised a concern about wet ground and a possible leaking pipe was on 18 April 2024 in the 14-day notice. The landlord claims they were denied entry onto the premises to investigate the problem until December 2024. The landlord claims a plumber visited the premises around this time and fixed the problem. Analysis
The landlord denies the tenant alerted them to the fact that the ground was permanently wet verbally before 18 April 2024. In the absence of any corroborating evidence confirming the tenant raised the issue verbally before this date, I am not convinced they did. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue on 18 April 2024.
The tenant did not want the landlord to investigate the issue, because the relationship had become strained. The appropriate course of action would have been for the landlord to have instructed a professional to investigate the issue, rather than waiting until December 2024 when the tenant allowed them onto the premises to look at it.
The tenant claims the issue was not fixed until just before they left the tenancy, whereas the landlord claims it was fixed in December 2024. Neither party submitted any supporting evidence confirming the date the leaking pipe was fixed. On the balance of probabilities, I find the issue was remedied in December 2024.
There is a delay of approximately 7 months between when the landlord became aware of the issue and when it was eventually fixed. At this stage, the landlord had received three 14-day notices from the tenant listing 45 issues that apparently needed repair. Some of the issues were serious such as, allegations the premises were structurally unsound and damp. The landlord understandably prioritised these matters first. Notwithstanding this, I still consider a delay of 7 months to be unreasonable in the context of a leaking pipe. This type of maintenance issue is more serious than broken hinges on kitchen cabinets.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to maintain the underground toilet pipe in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I consider $100.00 to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have had regard to the fact that the delay took place in the context of the landlord needing to respond to 45 alleged maintenance issues at the time. Further, I do not find the tenant suffered a significant loss of amenity, as the leak occurred in a small area outside the premises. I am not convinced the leak contributed to water ingress under the house and in the garage, as claimed by the tenant. The tenant is not qualified to give this kind of evidence and the building inspection report does not note any concerns around water pooling under the house.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $100.00. Front fence Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises had a small wooden fence at the beginning of the tenancy, which blew down in August 2021. A replacement fence was erected, but it was a wire fence. The tenant claims the fence should have been replaced by a wooden fence and the wire fence was unsafe, because it had spikes at the top. The tenant claims it was hard to mow the lawn, because the section is on a hill and they cut themselves on the fence.
The landlord claims they are not required to replace the wooden fence with another wooden fence and the wire fence is entirely adequate. Analysis
The wooden fence provided at the beginning of the tenancy was clearly on its last legs. It is not surprising that it needed to be replaced by August 2021. From the photographs submitted, the wire fence appears adequate. It is a similar height to the wooden fence.
The tenant did not have pets. A wooden fence might be considered to provide more security in terms of containing animals compared to a wire fence however, the tenant did not have any animals to contain.
The landlord was not required to replace the wooden fence with a wooden fence. They can replace it with a different fence, as long as it is not worse than the original fence. Considering the age and condition of the wooden fence at the beginning of the tenancy, I find the replacement wire fence to be of the same calibre.
The photographs of the fence show the premises is on a flat section and any lean towards the fence is minimal. I am far from convinced the wire fence posed a safety risk as claimed by the tenant or that the tenant cur their hand on it when mowing the lawns.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord replaced the broken wooden fence in a timely manner and the installation of a wire fence was adequate.
This claim is dismissed. Asbestos Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the front fence was made partly from asbestos and there was also asbestos around the vegetable garden. When the landlord removed the fence, the tenant claims they notified them that some of it was asbestos and asked them to remove the asbestos from the vegetable garden too. The tenant claims the landlord broke up the asbestos on the premises, which is a health and safety concern in terms of particles entering the house. Further the tenant claims the landlord tried to dispose of the asbestos in a regular skip bin and the tenant got in trouble from the skip bin company. The tenant claims the asbestos remained on the premises for one week before it was disposed of properly.
The landlord claims they were unaware the fence was partly made from asbestos until the tenant advised them of this. Once the landlord knew this, they arranged for appropriate disposal of the asbestos. The landlord denies breaking the asbestos up in the garden with a hammer and claims they broke it up inside the bin. Analysis
Neither party gave evidence about when this incident happened, which makes it difficult for me to determine if the landlord acted within a reasonable timeframe.
This issue is not included in any of the 14-day notices, which suggests it was dealt with in a timely manner.
The landlord submitted an invoice from Advanced Environmental Services Ltd, which confirms 8.5m² of asbestos fence sheeting was removed from the premises and disposed of professionally. This evidence convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the landlord acted within a reasonable timeframe to appropriately remove the asbestos.
This claim is dismissed. House downpipe Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the pipe by the corner of the third bedroom was broken. The tenant claims it would not drain rainwater properly and the rubber seal was missing. The tenant claims they reported the issue verbally to the landlord within the first week of the tenancy and for the first time in writing in the 14-day notice dated 18 April 2024. The tenant claims the landlord put silicone around the top of the pipe, but this repair was inadequate, because the issue was underground.
The tenant claims the problem was never properly fixed.
The landlord claims the tenant raised the issue with them for the first time in the 14-day notice dated 18 April 2024. The landlord claims the tenant only mentioned the pipe being cracked, not that it was leaking. The landlord claims they had all of the exterior piping inspected in December 2024 and no concerns were noted. Analysis
The landlord denies the tenant alerted them to the state of the pipe until 18 April 2024 when the 14-day notice was sent. In the absence of any corroborating evidence confirming the tenant raised the issue verbally before this date, I am not convinced they did. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord first became aware of the issue on 18 April 2024.
The 14-day notice states “house down pipe – clay pipe broken around lip. Let’s ground water into pipe.” No mention of the pipe leaking underground is made, which supports the landlord’s claim that the tenant’s only concern was that the pipe was cracked.
The landlord submitted a copy of a report from Choice Plumbing, which the landlord claims they commissioned in December 2024. It does not record any problems with the outdoor piping. This convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the repair completed by the landlord was adequate.
The tenant has not submitted enough evidence to support their claim that the pipe leaked underground or that the repair completed by the landlord was inadequate.
This claim is dismissed.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

I have found that the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) RTA. This constitutes an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 21
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord acted intentionally. This is because the landlord had to respond to over 45 maintenance requests made by the tenant within a short period of time. I consider any delay in attending to repairs to most likely have been inadvertent, not intentional.
For this reason, I decline to order exemplary damages. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? The law
Section 38 RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord.” Section 38(2) states that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” Contravention of this section in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be ordered. 22
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the RTA. It is defined in section 3 of the Harassment Act 1997. which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. In MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), the District Court held that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was 21 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. 22 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(3) and Schedule 1A. more appropriate in the context of the RTA than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The District Court held that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment is unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that, “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant claims the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment by: a. Being rude to them at the beginning of the tenancy about the firewood. b. Assaulting them with an oven door. c. Not redirecting their personal mail.
I discuss each allegation individually below. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by being rude to them when the tenant declined to remove the firewood at the beginning of the tenancy? Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord visited the premises at the beginning of the tenancy and asked the tenant to remove everything from under the house. The tenant claims the visit occurred on a Friday and the landlord wanted everything removed by Monday. The tenant claims they explained to the landlord that they were not physically fit to do the work in such a short timeframe and the landlord yelled at them “you do it! You have to do it!” The tenant claims the landlord’s voice got louder and louder as they repeatedly told the tenant to remove the stuff under the house. The tenant was shocked they were spoke to like this. The tenant claims the landlord then left.
The landlord denies this ever happened. Analysis
The tenant did not submit any evidence such as a video of the incident to support their version of events.
The landlord submitted copies of a text message they sent to the property manager advising them that a contractor would be visiting the premise to remove the items underneath the house. The landlord does not appear angry at having to hire a contractor in these messages, nor do they mention anything about the tenant refusing to clear under the house.
The tenant has not submitted enough evidence to convince me on the balance of probabilities the landlord ever yelled at them in the way claimed.
This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by assaulting them with an oven door? Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord assaulted them with the oven door by pulling it down hard. The tenant claims the door cut his finger, which bled. The tenant claims this occurred when the landlord visited the premises to inspect the second hand oven that was installed. The tenant claims the landlord was annoyed the tenant had complained about the second hand oven. The tenant claims the landlord yelled at them and as the tenant was pointing at something to do with the oven, the landlord pulled the door down and cut the tenant’s finger.
The landlord denies they ever intentionally hurt the tenant with the oven door. The landlord claims it was an accident. The landlord claims they were spoken to by the Police and no charges were ever laid. Analysis
The tenant claims the acting property manager was present and witnessed the alleged assault with the oven door. The landlord submitted an email sent by this property manager dated 22 March 2025. They state that the owner shut the oven door, which caught the tenant. Nothing is mentioned about whether they believed the act to be intentional or not.
The landlord called their own witness who was at the premises at the time however, they were not in the kitchen and did not witness the incident. They gave evidence that they heard raised voices, but were unable to comment on the incident, because they did not see it.
The tenant made a statement to the Police, but no charges were laid against the landlord.
The allegation made by the tenant against the landlord is serious. Something more than just a bare assertion of what the tenant claims happened is required. The tenant has not submitted enough evidence to convince me on the balance of probabilities the landlord intentionally hit them with the oven door.
This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by not organising their mail to be redirected? Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims they continued to receive the landlord’s mail after the tenancy began, which was annoying.
The landlord claims they organised for a redirection of their mail. Analysis
The tenant submitted photographs of some mail belonging to the landlord’s company that the tenant received. Whilst it might have been somewhat annoying for the tenant to receive the landlord’s mail, I am far from convinced this inconvenience reached the level of breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The tenant was still able to enjoy and use the premises as if they were their own.
This claim is dismissed.

Is the termination notice retaliatory?

The law

When determining whether a notice to end the tenancy is retaliatory, the Tribunal must consider the following matters: 23 a. Whether the notice to end the tenancy complies with section 51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U); 23 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 54. b. Whether the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy; and c. Whether the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord sent the tenant a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy on 3 February 2025. The tenant claims the notice was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant’s 14 day notices sent on: a. 15 February 2024 b. 18 February 2024 c. 18 April 2025 d. 27 November 2024
The tenant claims the landlord had no other reason to end the tenancy, because the tenant paid their rent on time and looked after the premises.
The landlord denies the termination notice is retaliatory. Analysis
The is a gap of approximately two and a half months between the date of the last 14-day notice sent on 27 November 2024 and the date the termination notice was sent on 3 February 2025. Whilst there is some proximity between these two dates, the termination notice has not been sent immediately after the latest 14-day notice.
The tenant sent three previous 14-day notices in February and April 2024 raising a total of 46 maintenance requests. If the termination notice was partly or wholly motivated by the tenant’s 14-day notices, I consider it more likely than not it would have been sent around this time. The landlord appears to have been happy to attend to most of the issues raised in the tenant’s 14-day notices. Plumbers, handymen and a building inspector were all sent to the premises to investigate a range of problems and complete repairs. The landlord does not appear to have been disturbed or frustrated by the tenant’s request for maintenance to be undertaken.
For these reasons, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was partly or wholly motivated to terminate the tenancy because of the tenant’s 14-day notices.
I decline to declare the termination notice retaliatory. Filing fee & name suppression
The tenant has been successful with some of their claims, but I do not think they have been substantially successful. Therefore, I do not order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant did not request name suppression on their written application and therefore, I do not order it.
The landlord requested name suppression on their written application, but they have not been wholly or substantially successful with their application. Therefore, I do not order suppression of the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5165311 — State of repair at 35 Hutchinsons Road, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5165311 — State of repair at 35 Hutchinsons Road, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal strike out these proceedings?

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Is the termination notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal strike out these proceedings?

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Is the termination notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions