What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5175251 about?

The tribunal order states: Marlborough Real Estate 2008 Limited As Agent For [The landlord/s] & [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5175251?

Compensation: $330.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5175251?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5175251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12647973-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5175251 about?

The tribunal order states: Marlborough Real Estate 2008 Limited As Agent For [The landlord/s] & [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5175251?

Compensation: $330.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5175251?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5175251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12647973-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 Lucas Street, Riversdale, Blenheim 7201 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5175251 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5175251 — net $330.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – Failure to maintain – Hot Water	$330.00	Compensation – Failure to maintain – Hot Water
Net award	$330.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$330.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5175251 — net $330.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – Failure to maintain – Hot Water	$330.00	Compensation – Failure to maintain – Hot Water
Net award	$330.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$330.00

Order

Marlborough Real Estate 2008 Limited As Agent For [The landlord/s] & [The landlord/s] and [The party] must pay [The party] $330.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Jack Feavers and Niki Julian represented the landlord. They confirmed the owners were aware of the hearing but, as named second respondent, they declined to appear, happy for their agent to represent them.
The tenant entered the hearing with her mother online on a phone as a support person (her mother resides in the United States). After some clarification, her mother’s role was switched to a witness, primarily regarding the claim of an offer of rent to buy and the call was ended. She was called later at the appropriate time by the Tribunal during the hearing.
The tenant sought orders for compensation of $6000.00 and exemplary damages, alleging landlord failures, including maintenance (including Healthy Homes Standards), interference with quiet enjoyment, unlawful entry, and a claim of a rent to buy agreement that was not honoured.
While included in my previous Case Conference Minute, I reinforce a key evidential point again. Judge Mather in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 stated: “..it is...incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence.
It is not a question of a party not being “right” or not telling the truth. The sole issue is whether they have on the evidence presented, proven that their claim is more likely than not.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
A challenge for the tenant in succeeding with a number of her claims is the large extent of disputed verbal agreements during this tenancy, verses any written agreement. For that reason, I note here that a verbal promise is enforceable as a contract if it is sufficiently certain and complete, supported by consideration and attended by an intention to contract. The description ‘offer’ connotes that acceptance in accordance with its terms creates a sufficiently certain and complete contract supported by consideration.
What one intends, or recalls saying, may not align with the other parties understanding at that time, or later. In terms of reaching any binding agreement, there must be sufficiently certain terms by one party to another party; the other party has accepted those terms; there is consideration (an exchange of values); and the parties intended to create a legal relationship.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Background
Prior to this tenancy, the tenant lived in a sleepout at the property. The main house that later became this tenancy was occupied under a previous tenancy agreement. The tenant of the house back then was known to Crystal although she said she spent little time in the house prior to her moving in.
This tenancy commenced on 15 May 2022. The owners were the landlord of record.
The now ex-tenant was informally used by Crystal as her initial point of contact for issues, even well into the tenancy. He had no formal role as landlord or agent for them but appeared to willingly assist where possible. Why or how this preference evolved was never clearly established although I do not find it was due to any direction by the landlord. The challenge some years later with claims of any landlord failure during this period was that claimed issues appear to have been directed to him when they should have been directed to the owners for any appropriate action.
The owners decided in September 2024 to engage a property manager, Harcourts. The tenant appeared confused as to how the tenancy would operate with the two landlords.
This change caused some angst for the tenant as she considered previous agreements between her and the owners had been disregarded by the agent.
The property manager, Niki Julian, explained in an email to the tenant dated 5 November 2025. In that email, she wrote:
A landlord application to the Tribunal was subsequently lodged by the agent with the intention to access Tenancy Tribunal mediation to resolve a number of the legacy tenancy issues that had become contentious. The mediation on 19 November 2024 failed to reach any agreement. The landlord withdrew the application rather than advance to a Tribunal hearing. The owners did not attend the mediation but provided the agent a brief written perspective of their stance.
The agent later issued a notice to terminate on the owners’ instruction. That notice was challenged by the tenant as being retaliatory. That matter was heard by a previous adjudicator who dismissed that claim and the notice remained valid.
The tenancy ended. No vacated landlord application was lodged. The bond was returned to the tenant. Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant claimed in her application under the HHS claim section that “the house is not properly insulated and there are holes in the walls, ceilings, windows and the front door has a gap that was minimally fixed by a service worker called Nick.”
In response to the claims the landlord tabled an HHS report from 13 October 2025.
The tenancy agreement claimed compliance or exemptions. Specifically, the tenancy agreement claimed the subfloor was not enclosed. 1 1 In the context of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) in New Zealand, a subfloor is considered "50% enclosed" when airflow in and out of the subfloor is significantly obstructed along at least half of its perimeter. This means that if the space under the floor has barriers that restrict air movement, it qualifies as enclosed.
This view was confirmed again by Harcourts in their compliance statement dated 4 September 2024 and signed by the owners.
A Healthy Homes Assessment was conducted and reported on 13 October 2025 (over six months after the tenancy ended). It noted only one failure, the lack of a moisture barrier.
The report is silent on any possible exemption due to the previous views that the subfloor was not enclosed. Relying on photos, the subfloor appears to have several trellis-covered sides on a pile-elevated house. It is not clear from those if 50% of the subfloor was enclosed or not. In the context of Healthy Homes Standards, a trellis may not qualify as a complete enclosure for the subfloor. The report of October 2025 is accepted but the previous stance of the landlord in claiming no enclosed subfloor (to the required coverage) does not appear without some possible justification and even placing weighting on the specialist’s post-tenancy report, I would have to consider the comment in the report noting the failure of the installed attempt in-situ at that time and possible failure during the tenancy and the report was made.
The claim of enclosed exemption is not without some possible justification. No building performance issues were clearly raised during the tenancy due to any sub-floor moisture problems resulting from a lack of a moisture barrier.
Even if I determined the failure to be an unlawful act by the landlord, the necessary intent to form exemplary damages is not evident here. Any adverse impact on the tenant is uncertain.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
Crystal claims that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. I consider issues in turn, noting this was a tenancy managed in two phases; firstly with the owners as landlord for the bulk of the tenancy, and lastly with Harcourts as agent for the owners. Owners as landlord
The premises hot water was supplied via an on-demand LPG Califont 2.
The tenant complained of an ongoing a gas leak and no hot water. The tenant claimed this was a pre-existing issue that she was told about by the previous tenant.
The owner was notified of a problem by the tenant in May 2023 and a contractor came out. No problem was found at this time by the contractor. His professional qualification was questioned at the hearing by the tenant but nothing at the time indicated concerns with the contractor and their capabilities.
The issue was raised again sometime later in April 2024, again with the owners. The tenant claimed her flatmates were unhappy with the ongoing lack of hot water for showering and they had left due to this and other maintenance problems with the premises. The sleep out – now used for the tenant’s business with the owner’s permission, had a separate hot water supply and shower that was supposedly used. The actual impact of any issues around the how water appeared to be the smell of gas, and the failure to heat. The tenant failed to clearly identify the frequency of either event. The timescale between raisings of any problem suggests to me it was infrequent.
In August 2024 a contractor attended again, and this time identified problems with the tank hose connections into the regulator (the tenant referred to it as the meter but having it described I believe it to be the regulator connected to the two cylinders. A second repair by the contractor at the time was also made, described by the tenant as being to an “electrical box” – that is assumed to be the Califont igniter. A failure to ignite the gas on demand will prevent the Califont heating water.
The owners accepted the problem as shown in the message below. The message also provides for some compensation from the April notice until the August repair. No evidence of any compensation sum being nominated by 2 Alternatively called a tankless water heater, gas hot water heater, or an instant hot water heater. Crystal (or paid), as proposed in the message below, was made available and the tenant sought compensation now, without a specified sum.
The tenant claimed other flatmates were exiting due to maintenance issues, especially the lack of hot water, but no evidence of this was provided. There were other messages provided that showed the tenant acting in a way that suggested she was removing flatmates some other reasons. Some of her messages suggest a higher force was influencing such decisions.
There is no evidence that exiting tenants left due to building performance issues. There is evidence of other non-landlord issues at play.
The tenant claimed an ongoing pest problem with rodents and ants. This appears to have been a challenge for her, but the landlord responded with the engagement of a pest controller. The tenant claimed a history of ongoing adverse impacts from the smell of dead rats and having to manage ant infestations.
In her application she wrote: The pest control was horrific, there were ants in my bedroom floor and bed, as well as cockroaches crawling on me at night and rats banging on the ceiling since I began my tenancy and prior to negotiations of pest control on behalf of [The party]. The back room with warped floor of a moisture leak under the house has dead rats in the roof that have never had the smell go away, regardless of my requests of removal to Harcourts Michelle Pope and Niki Jullian during the initial Harcourts inspection without [The landlord/s]. Ants fall from the ceiling fixtures all over the house, and in the bedroom rug constantly every 5-10minutes.
While some photos show ants present, I have little evidence of any prolonged failure by the landlord in addressing any underlying causes of such pest issues as claimed. Management of pests is often a collaborative exercise as was the case here. The evidence of the extent of any impact from pests does not align with the tenant’s later description as “horrific”.
I do not find grounds to compensate the tenant due to any failure of the landlord regarding pest control.
The owner and tenant made some agreements regarding the addition of chickens and a coop, maintenance of a glasshouse, and a gate. The maintenance of the lawns and gardens became contentious later, but the owner did help the tenant with some external garden maintenance at time. The demarcation of responsibilities was blurred. The glasshouse stalled after the owner provided materials, apparently pending another contra deal.
The outdoor lighting issue as raised has not been proven as a landlord failure.
The tenant claimed a number of agreements between her and the owners had been reached but not honoured by the owners. My reading is that there was more than one instance of what appears to be tenant “assumptive closure” of arrangements or, alternatively, general confusion.
Another text message (below) appears to confirm the tenant view that she undertook additional responsibilities to help, albeit what formed the “original agreement” is not clear. There is no apparent expectation of compensation for any such additional tasks.
The message above advises some clarification on maintenance will be required as the tenancy moves into agency management. Harcourts
Harcourts commenced their agency in September 2025. There was some engagement prior to the formal commencement date. While this early contact was challenged by the tenant, such steps are typically expected to ensure a timely transition and not a ground for any compensation.
The transition does not appear to have been welcomed by the tenant who seemed uncertain of the change in roles and what that meant. A further challenge came from the change to a more formal management structure from what had previously been informal and less defined.
On 27 September 2025 the tenant served the agent three notice to remedy:
The claimed breaches reflect the confused arrangements predating the notices but not clearly breaches by the landlord of their responsibilities.
As noted earlier, the agent sought resolution through mediation. The owners declined to attend the mediation. I consider they had some role in the historic confusion on who was responsible for what. Their involvement in mediation might have improved the chances of a mediated agreement being reached.
A written statement from the owners was provided to the agent before mediation. It reflects the owners view that they never entered into any agreement regarding garden and lawn maintenance. They stated they had “offered to help her at times if things” got too much – saying this meant 3-4 visits for weeding and another time to spray weeds on the driveway over two years. The statement confirmed their paying for one therapy session in consideration for a gate installation (a completed contra deal). A claimed second arrangement along the same lines regarding repairs to the glasshouse was anticipated but never completed.
The statement also confirms some discussion around painting but reflects the text messages inserted above that no agreement was ever concluded. It also discusses the gardening agreement, reflecting again the view that the tenant was solely responsible gardening, “except hedges and fruit tree pruning”. The tenant was assertive regarding the pruning timing and requirements to maximise fruit. Was there interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
Section 38(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states: "The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming through the landlord or with the landlord’s title or by any other person lawfully entitled to enter the premises."
This means the tenant has the right to live in the property without unreasonable interference from the landlord, their agents, or others.
Quiet enjoyment does not mean absolute silence, but rather freedom from substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises.
Distilling the incidents as cited in the applications and as submitted, I consider the tenant’s main claims pertain to the verbal behaviour of one owner during a maintenance visit. The second was the transition to agency management.
I accept both events caused some angst for the tenant but having considered all the submissions and evidence, neither reach a threshold that I consider merit any compensation. There was frustration across the board as best I can infer regarding expectations. The owners verbal comment during the visit for gap filling does not reflect well on him but the later written recounting of the event by the tenant to the agent, highlights the underlying tension that I consider, at least in part, was a driver for the owners engaging an agent to assist.

Did any unlawful entry occur?

There was an ongoing presence of the owners as they completed or assisted in completing outdoor tasks. Such tasks did not require notice. There were times of permitted entry for task completion (as well as socialising). The entry of contractors was generally managed by the tenant but Crystal believes there was at least one instance of unauthorised entry, but that belief could not be evidentially supported.
The ending of the tenancy was messy. Crystal sought extensions after the landlord notice to terminate was upheld as appropriate and biding. This included attempts to reengage directly with the owners to make her case. The agent was placed in a difficult situation but I do not consider the actions of the agent at the end of the tenancy were unlawful.
I do not find any unlawful entry has been evidenced to the required standard to prove the landlord committed any unlawful entry.
Even if wrong and an unlawful act was committed, given the operation of the tenancy pre-agency and tenant behaviours around termination, any order for exemplary damages would have to consider the intention and impact respectively and no exemplary damages award would be automatic.

Was there a rent to buy agreement?

The tenant felt strongly that she had an agreement with the owners regarding an opportunity to purchase the premises. This was mostly expressed as a rent- to-buy understanding.
The tenant had her mother join the hearing as a witness, as anticipated. Her mother had been to the house and prepared a Thanksgiving dinner to share with her daughter and the owners at the house. Some general discussion at that time regarding a potential sale was recalled by her mother.
Her mother also recalled her daughter being very excited on a call when she believed she had an opportunity to purchase the premises. This was confirmed in a text message to her mother on 22 August 2024 when she said “The landlords will sell to me if I can get the loan!!”
Despite the belief of the tenant of some binding agreement (with no terms defined), I can derive nothing from the submissions and messages that indicated anything other than the enquiry by the owner if the tenant was interested in buying the property as they were considering selling it. The response in the affirmative by her led to no obvious follow-up discussion of obvious terms for any such sale, outright or in a rent-to-buy scheme.
It is unfortunate she apparently took unfounded steps to refund their paid rent to previous other flatmates in some ill-conceived preparation for the anticipated purchase.
There is no basis to support the claim of the tenant that any agreement for the sale of the premises was ever more than an enquiry from the owner regarding interest and feasibility that did not advance in any defined or structured way one would expect for such a major transaction.
This claim is dismissed.

Was there a work for rent agreement?

Both parties clearly intended to explore possible work for rent. As was evident elsewhere, the tenant appears to have read more into the discussions before any settled terms could be said to have formed and be binding.
In the text messages below, the sequence shows the concept had some mutual appeal but never advances to anything that could, in my view, be deemed a binding agreement.
I have discussed previously the need for certainty of terms to infer some enforceable contract has been created. No such certainty is apparent here. Other matters Adding a second tenant.
The tenant claims the landlord failed to add a second tenant, after a claimed prior verbal acceptance of this.
The lack of written agreement for such an addition hinders the argument here. One text message from the tenant to the owner on 25 October 2024 regarding this stated earlier in the message that higher forces were sending directions again and requested:
No evidence was provided of any response or confirmation from the landlord that this was in response to any agreement that Rory was accepted as a second tenant.
The claim is dismissed. Police corruption
The tenant has a separate complaint process underway regarding the claimed behaviours of one police officer. I have no view on this and do not consider it has any direct bearing on the claims here. Summary
I note the tenant’s manner and approach at the hearing was considered and articulate. This contrasts with some written or digital evidence presented.
Written content, at times, appeared incoherent and inconsistent with how the tenant presented at the hearing. Discerning between the two has been challenging. I shared my observation at the hearing that the tenant was, at times, asserting “rights” she had no statutory basis to. “Want does not get” and there is a frustration evident in some communication between the parties when what she wanted did not eventuate.
The transition to agency with Harcourts was not smooth and I consider the owners and agent had some responsibility for this, the former for the lack of tenancy structure prior that created some role confusion that may have resolved at mediation if the owners had engaged directly at that time, the later due to a rigid transition and assertions that failed to accommodate the long tenancy and clear underlying tenancy issues that I consider (in the absence of the owners to account for why) had led the owners to engage an agent.
That said, the tenant was confused regarding the transition and at time recalcitrant to her dealings with the agents. Attempts to bypass them with direct contact with the owner, despite being clearly advised on the correct engagement protocol, broadened the confused audience.
Ultimately, the tenant application is less successful than lodged due to long periods of any claimed impact from any landlord failure not being evidenced to the required level. It appears the landlord generally responded to valid tenant requests in an appropriate manner.
Another weakness in the claims were inconsistencies evident in actions and claims. I have previously commented on what appears to be assumptive closing by the tenant of some significant potential agreements between the parties, be it adding a second tenant, or entering into a rent-to-buy contract. Such inconsistencies undermine the claims or submissions made where the evidence does not support them.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5175251 — State of repair at 31 Lucas Street, Riversdale, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5175251 — State of repair at 31 Lucas Street, Riversdale, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did any unlawful entry occur?

Was there a rent to buy agreement?

Was there a work for rent agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did any unlawful entry occur?

Was there a rent to buy agreement?

Was there a work for rent agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.