What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5214473 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5214473?

Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Granules For Water: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $165.80 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $10,071.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5214473?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5214473?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12469722-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5214473 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5214473?

Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Granules For Water: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $165.80 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $10,071.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5214473?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5214473?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12469722-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5214473 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5214473 — net $8,003.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 June 2025	$10,071.42		34. The amount of rent arrears from 24 October 2024 to 15 June 2025 is proven.
Power	$165.80		Power
Granules for water	$86.25		Granules for water
Garden tidy up	$400.00		Garden tidy up
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes		$720.00	Failure to meet healthy homes
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$10,750.47	$747.00
Net award	$8,003.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,003.47

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5214473 — net $8,003.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 June 2025	$10,071.42		34. The amount of rent arrears from 24 October 2024 to 15 June 2025 is proven.
Power	$165.80		Power
Granules for water	$86.25		Granules for water
Garden tidy up	$400.00		Garden tidy up
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failure to meet healthy homes		$720.00	Failure to meet healthy homes
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$10,750.47	$747.00
Net award	$8,003.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,003.47

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The parties signed an agreement for a periodic tenancy commencing on 24 October 2024.
[The landlord/s] filed a Tenancy Tribunal application on 12 April 2025 seeking termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, power costs, the cost of granules used in the water supply, garden tidy up costs, and compensation for stress.
A Tenancy Tribunal hearing took place by phone on 11 June 2025. [The landlord/s] participated in that hearing. Ms Hakopa did not. The Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy, awarding [the landlord/s] the costs sought in her application, and releasing the bond to the landlord.
Ms Hakopa filed an application for a re-hearing.
On 18 June 2025 Adjudicator Young granted the re-hearing in part. 1
Ms Hakopa filed a cross-application on 11 June 2025. The application raised issues relating to healthy homes compliance, mould, and breach of quiet enjoyment.
The applications were heard by me across two hearings at the [Event location suppressed], on 30 July and 12 September 2025. Both parties participated in the hearings. Landlord application Rent arrears
The rent was $500.00 per week.
The landlord’s claim seeks rent arrears for the period from 24 October 2024 to 19 June 2025.
Ms Hakopa did not dispute the accuracy of the landlord’s rent record.
Ms Hakopa disputed the claim for rent arrears on the grounds that: a. She cancelled the tenancy, or withdrew from it, so it did not begin on 24 October 2024. The tenancy didn’t begin until late December 2024, and she is not liable for rent before then. b. She left the property in mid-May and she should not be liable for rent to 19 June. Start of the tenancy
Ms Hakopa said that: 1 The order for termination of the tenancy at 11.59pm on Thursday 19 June 2025 remained in effect. a. At the signing of the agreement on 24 October, [the landlord/s] engaged in “abusive, aggressive behaviour, yelling, intimidating, irrational behaviour throwing household items”. b. She did not feel comfortable or safe to continue with the tenancy. c. She did not move in. d. She did not pay the bond. e. She made a complaint to the police about [the landlord/s] behaviour. f. She considered the agreement to be cancelled. g. In December 2024 she decided to “mend fences” and started the tenancy with [the landlord/s].
[The landlord/s] denied Ms Hakopa’s allegations about her behaviour. She said that Ms Hakopa pressured her to have the tenancy. She says that her ears were blocked at their meeting on 24 October so her voice may have been louder than normal, but she was not shouting. The meeting happened shortly before she was due to fly out of the country, and she was doing her best to get the property ready for Ms Hakopa, which caused her stress, but she was not angry or aggressive.
A tenancy agreement is a binding and enforceable contract. The landlord and tenant are adults, with capacity to enter into legal agreements.
I have no independent evidence about what happened on 24 October.
Even if it was proven that [the landlord/s] behaved in the way that Ms Hakopa alleges, that does not void the tenancy agreement or give Ms Hakopa the legal right to cancel it.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides remedies to landlords and tenants if there is a proven breach of a legal duty that is owed under the Act. In some circumstances, the Tenancy Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy.
Ms Hakopa could have brought an application to the Tenancy Tribunal if she considered that [the landlord/s] had breached her duties as a landlord on 24 October. However, there was no legal basis for Ms Hakopa to unilaterally withdraw from the tenancy that she had already committed to.
The fact that Ms Hakopa did not pay the bond does not mean that the agreement was not “completed” or that there was no consideration given for the contract. The consideration was Ms Hakopa’s promise to pay the bond, which is in the tenancy agreement. Not paying the bond didn’t void the agreement, it simply put Ms Hakopa in breach of it.
The fact that Ms Hakopa did not move in also did not void or cancel the agreement. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, [the landlord/s] promised to give Ms Hakopa the right to occupy the premises from 24 October 2024. [The landlord/s] met her duty. It was up to Ms Hakopa whether she moved in or not.
Therefore I find that there was a binding and legal enforceable tenancy agreement from 24 October 2024 and Ms Hakopa was obliged to pay rent from that date. End of the tenancy
Ms Hakopa left the property on or around 14 May 2025.
[The landlord/s] said that she was not aware that Ms Hakopa had left.
This was a periodic tenancy. A tenant can terminate a tenancy by giving at least 21-days’ notice in writing to the landlord. The written notice must specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises. 2
Ms Hakopa said that she sent [the landlord/s] an email telling her that was leaving the tenancy.
[The landlord/s] said that she did receive an email from Ms Hakopa, but it only said in vague terms that Ms Hakopa was thinking of leaving at some point. No date was specified or even indicated.
The parties provided a substantial volume of evidence, but neither provided me with a copy of this email.
It is Ms Hakopa’s argument that the tenancy ended by notice. The information provided to me does not show that she gave a notice to [the landlord/s] that met the legal requirements for an effective termination notice.
Therefore, the tenancy did not end by notice.
The tenancy terminated on 15 June 2025 by an order from the Tenancy Tribunal.
Ms Hakopa abandoned the tenancy.
Where a tenant abandons a periodic tenancy, the tenant remains liable for rent to the date that is 21-days from the date that the landlord became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, that the tenant had abandoned the premises.
There is no evidence to show that [the landlord/s] was aware, or ought to have been aware, before 25 May 2025 3 that the property was abandoned. Therefore, 2 Section 51(3)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 21 days before 15 June 2025 I find that Ms Hapoka is liable for rent through to the day that the tenancy was terminated, 15 June 2025.
The amount of rent arrears from 24 October 2024 to 15 June 2025 is proven. Power
The claim seeks the cost of power used during the tenancy.
[The landlord/s] provided a calculation of the power, with supporting invoices from the power supplier.
Tenants are liable to pay for power used during the tenancy. 4
The power invoices include consumption charges and a “fixed daily fee” charge.
Tenants pay for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises. 5 Landlords pay for outgoings that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied. 6
For an outgoing such as water, the local Council charges the property owner a fixed or daily charge for the water supply whether or not any water is used at the property. This is a cost that the landlord must incur whether or not the property is tenanted, similar to rates or insurance, so the landlord pays this part of any water invoice from the Council, and the tenant only pays the consumption charge.
I indicated to [the landlord/s] that I would have to give consideration to whether Ms Hakopa is liable to pay the fixed daily fee for power, or only the consumption portion.
My finding is that Ms Hakopa is liable to pay both the daily fee and the consumption charge. Power was connected with this supplier only because Ms Hakopa entered into the tenancy. Unlike fixed water supply charges, it is not a charge that [the landlord/s] would have been required to pay even if there was no tenant in the property.
The usual process is that tenants arrange for their own power supplier, and they pay the invoices that the supplier sends to them, which includes fixed and consumption charges.
This is not an instance of the landlord insisting that the power must be in her name. [The landlord/s] only set up the power account for the tenancy because Ms Hapoka failed to.
The total cost of power use during the tenancy is proven. 4 Section 39(4)(a) RTA 5 Section 39(3) RTA 6 Section 39(1)(a) RTA Granules for water
The household water for the property comes from a bore.
There is filtration in the house.
[The landlord/s] said that the water is potable, but it is somewhat acidic. The water supply system adds a chemical to the water at the pump, to reduce the acidity.
Landlords have a duty to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of potable water, if the property is not on a reticulated supply. 7
Tenants must pay for any outgoings that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s use of the premises. 8
I accept that the water is potable, and that the purpose of the granules is to improve the quality of the water and mitigate the consequences of ‘hard’ water.
Therefore: a. The cost of granules is not part of [the landlord/s] meeting her duty to provide potable water. b. The cost of the granules is an outgoing that is exclusively attributable to the tenant’s use the premises. c. The tenant is liable for the cost of the granules.
The cost of granules used during the tenancy is proven. Garden tidy up and bamboo removal
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. 9 This includes any lawns and gardens.
The written tenancy agreement confirmed that the tenant is responsible for the lawns and gardens.
[The landlord/s] said that at the end of the tenancy the lawns and gardens were generally untidy, but the particular problem was that Ms Hakopa had failed to control the grown of bamboo on the section.
The bamboo encroaches from a neighbour’s property. Ms Hakopa was aware of the bamboo at the start of the tenancy. 7 Sections 45(1)(ca) and 45(1)(c) RTA, Section 123 Building Act 2004, Regulation 7, Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 8 Section 39(3) RTA 9 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA
The general principle here is that tenants are responsible for lawns, gardens, weeding, etc, but tenants are not responsible for large trees, hedges etc, which are considered part of the landlord’s maintenance duty.
Ms Hakopa argued that it was unreasonable to require her to control the bamboo growth.
I do not agree.
I accept that the bamboo can be controlled with minimal effort provided that it is not left unattended for long periods. If that happens, the bamboo grows quickly and then it does become difficult to deal with.
Ms Hapoka was aware of the bamboo. It was part of the property that she agreed to rent. [The landlord/s] provided her with clear information about controlling it, and with all the necessary tools.
[The landlord/s] provided two photographs from the end of the tenancy showing the extent of the bamboo growth.
[The landlord/s] claim seeks compensation of $400 to tidy up the lawns and gardens, which represents about 13.5 hours of labour. In my view this is fair and reasonable. Compensation for stress
[The landlord/s] seeks $500.00 for “stress, hours of time lost, copious notices sent and unanswered [etc]”.
The Tribunal may order a landlord to tenant to pay “such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act”. 10
In exercising its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must have regard to the general principles of law relating to the matter. 11
The law does allow a person to recover compensation for stress and inconvenience in certain circumstances, although such damages are rarely awarded in commercial settings. 12
The claim for damages for stress is dismissed on the grounds that: a. I have made awards of compensation in respect of the proven breaches in the landlord’s application. An award of further, non-pecuniary losses 10 Section 77(2)(n) RTA 11 Section 85(2) RTA 12 Hayes v James and Charles Dodd [1990] 2 All ER 937, Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 in addition to what I have already awarded would essentially amount to a penalty on the tenant. b. For a landlord, having a rental property is a commercial activity. Stress is a normal accompaniment of any commercial activity. Following the general principles of the law, damages for stress are only awarded in exceptional circumstances in commercial cases. Tenant application Healthy homes
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 13 A breach of this duty is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $7,200 can apply.
For tenancies that began between 27 August 2022 and 2 March 2025, the date for compliance was 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy.
This tenancy began on 24 October 2024. The date for compliance was 21 February 2025.
It is not disputed that the property does not meet the healthy homes standard for ventilation.
[The landlord/s] said that: a. Ms Hakopa insisted on taking the tenancy even though she was aware that it was not healthy homes compliant. b. Ms Hakopa told her not to worry about healthy homes because the compliance date was not until 1 July 2025. c. The tenancy was for a “short fixed term until 15 December 2024”. d. The house is not a rental property: “this is my home”.
My finding is that: a. The property was tenanted to Ms Hakopa. It is clearly a rental property. b. This was not a fixed term tenancy. It was a periodic tenancy. c. Even if it was proven that Ms Hakopa told her not to worry about healthy homes compliance (and it is not proven), landlords cannot avoid their legal duties under the RTA by agreement with the tenant. 14 d. The property did not comply with the healthy homes standard for ventilation by the compliance date. e. It is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages. 13 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 14 Section 11 RTA
In considering an appropriate award of damages I have had regard to the following mitigating factors: a. The beginning of this tenancy was very muddled and difficult, and it only became clear that Ms Hakopa wanted to stay in late December 2024. This gave [the landlord/s] a brief window to achieve compliance. b. Ms Hakopa left the property in mid-May 2025. c. [The landlord/s] genuinely understood that Ms Hapoka was not concerned about the lack of ventilation, and Ms Hapoka did not raise the issue until she filed this application.
I will award exemplary damages of $720.00. Mould
Ms Hakopa said that there was mould on the floor and skirting in the bedroom that backs onto the bathroom.
[The landlord/s] said that the discolouration in that area is not mould. It is historical damage caused by an overflow of the bath that happened more than a decade prior. [The landlord/s] said that the floor was sanded, but the discolouration could not be removed.
Ms Hakopa was unable to provide photographs of this area.
I have no other evidence to support Ms Hakopa’s argument that there is mould in this area.
Ms Hakopa has the burden of proof.
My finding is that this part of the claim is not proven. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Landlords must not cause or permit an unreasonable interference with the landlord’s peace, comfort, and privacy. 15 A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act. 16
Ms Hakopa said that [the landlord/s] interfered with her reasonable peace comfort and privacy by: a. Shouting and behaving aggressively when they met to sign the tenancy agreement on 24 October 2024; and 15 Section 38(2) RTA 16 Section 39(3) RTA b. Sending her frequent, unnecessary, and insulting messages, including late at night.
I have discussed the incident on 24 October 2024 above, in the context of the claim for rent arrears. As noted above, Ms Hakopa and [the landlord/s] gave differing evidence about what happened at that meeting. Ms Hakopa said that [the landlord/s] shouted, was clearly angry, and “threw around” items in an intimidating way. [The landlord/s] said that she may have spoken more loudly than usual because her ears were blocked, but she did not shout, and she did not throw things or behave inappropriately. She said that Ms Hakopa was overly sensitive.
I have no independent evidence about what happened.
Ms Hakopa’s evidence included screenshots of some of the messages that they exchanged. [The landlord/s] communications are not exactly crisp, clear, and businesslike, but this is a matter of personal style. I cannot see anything in the messages provided to me that is in the category of harassment of the tenant.
My finding is that this part of Ms Hakopa’s claim is not proven. Outcome, bond, filing fee, name suppression
The bond was paid to the landlord in July, pursuant to the previous Tenancy Tribunal order.
Both parties were partially successful in their applications, and I will award both the filing fee for their applications. 17
Ms Hakopa is to pay [the landlord/s] $8,003.47 per the calculation above.
Both parties sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression, on application, to any party who has “wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings”. 18 The Tribunal also has a discretion to grant suppression to any party “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”. 19
I am satisfied that [the landlord/s] substantially succeeded in the proceedings. Name suppression is granted to [the landlord/s] on that basis.
Ms Hakopa has not substantially succeeded in the proceedings.
There are no particular interests (such as safety) that justify the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion in this instance.
Therefore, name suppression is not granted to Ms Hakopa. 17 Section 104(2)(b) RTA 18 Section 95A(1) RTA 19 Section 95A(4) RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 5214473 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5214473 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions