What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5233157 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 5233157?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Re-Letting Costs: $1,026.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,880.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233157?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12139788-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5233157 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 5233157?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Re-Letting Costs: $1,026.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,880.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233157?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12139788-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5233157 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5233157 — net $4,133.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 May 2025 and rent differential for 40 weeks from 30 May 2025	$5,880.00	Rent arrears to 29 May 2025 and rent differential for 40 weeks from 30 May 2025
Re-letting costs	$1,026.75	Re-letting costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,133.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,133.75

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5233157 — net $4,133.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 May 2025 and rent differential for 40 weeks from 30 May 2025	$5,880.00	Rent arrears to 29 May 2025 and rent differential for 40 weeks from 30 May 2025
Re-letting costs	$1,026.75	Re-letting costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,133.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,133.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant] must pay [The landlord] $4,133.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (BN-00050155) to Yichuan Investments Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant and the Tribunal were assisted by the services of a mandarin interpreter.
The tenant has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has made a cross application for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Background
The tenant is a native Mandarin speaker who speaks little to no English.
This is the tenant and her two teenage children’s tenancy in New Zealand. As such, she was not fully aware of her rights and responsibilities as a tenant.
The fixed term tenancy commenced on 8 March 2025 and was due to end on 7 March 2026. On 4 April 2025 the tenant informed the landlord by WeChat she was moving out. On 5 April 2025 the tenant moved out of the premise and gave vacant possession to the landlord on 6 April 2025.
The WeChat message the tenant sent to the landlord informing him she was moving out conveys that this has been a challenging tenancy for her and her children and they have felt unsafe in this premise and have experienced many issues that have led them to feel like they had no choice but to end the fixed term tenancy early. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended abruptly on 6 April 2025, when the tenant handed back vacant possession to the landlord, after notifying the landlord on 4 April 2025 she was moving out.
The landlord confirmed a new tenant moved into the premise on 30 May 2025 and that it had not been able to get a tenant to pay the $780.00 it was receiving from the tenant. The new tenants are paying $30.00 less rent per week than the tenant was paying.
The tenant says she should be released from the fixed term tenancy and not be held liable for rent beyond 18 April 2025, as she was forced to leave the house due to the landlord not addressing her significant concerns about the noisy, unsafe and unsanitary living environment.
I reiterated to the tenant that parties enter into a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment. If a tenant wishes to default on that contract, and the landlord accepts the repudiation, then the tenancy ends on the terms agreed. In such a situation of surrender the landlord does not have to agree and can stipulate terms, provided they are reasonable. Such reasonable terms can be to ensure the aggrieved party (here the landlord) be placed in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. If the parties cannot agree to end the tenancy, it is open to the tenants to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term pursuant to section 66(1) RTA.
The parties confirmed that the tenant did not ask to be released from the fixed term tenancy early, nor did she apply to the Tribunal to have the fixed term reduced. She simply made the decision that she could not live there any more, as she and her children were suffering and unhappy, she gave less than 24 hours’ notice and moved out just over three weeks after she moved in.
When tenants breach a fixed term tenancy agreement, they are liable for the rent until a new tenant moves in or the fixed term ends, whichever is the earlier event. The tenant is also liable for any difference in rent paid by the new tenant and what rental amount they were paying each week.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven the tenant is liable for the rent arrears to 29 May 2025 and the rent differential for 40 weeks from 30 May 2025 and make an award of those amounts to the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the break lease/re-letting costs?

The landlord can require the tenant to pay for the reasonable costs associated with advertising and re-letting the premise when the tenant has repudiated the fixed term tenancy agreement.
The tenant gave the landlord less than 24 hours’ notice that she was ending the tenancy, and it incurred the costs of advertising, facilitating viewings, carrying out credit and police checks, writing up a new tenancy agreement and carrying out an exit inspection. I award compensation of $1,026.75 to the landlord, for the reasonable administration and advertising costs it incurred.
The landlord provided records that prove the reasonable break lease and re- letting expenses it incurred. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(a), (b) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(a), (b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Section 45(1)(a) of the RTA confirms the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
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 and/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 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Breaching either of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Did the landlord provide the premise to the tenants in a reasonable state of cleanliness?
The tenant says the landlord has failed to provide the rental premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Specifically, the tenant claims the oven was dirty and rusty, the dishwasher smelt mouldy and damp, there was a patch of mould on the dining room ceiling, rat excrement in the kitchen draws and lots of ants in the kitchen and bathroom.
She produced photographs of the dishwasher, mould, ant and oven issues and says the landlords were still cleaning the premise when she moved in. No photographs or any other proof of the rat excrement was provided.
The landlord produced a comprehensive set of entry inspection photographs that prove the house was in a reasonably clean and tidy state. It explained that it had to ask the prior tenants to move out a week early so this tenant could move in. The tenant moved in the morning after the other tenants moved out and that left very little time to get the premise cleaned. The landlord confirmed they did get in and help the prior tenants to clean the premise so the new tenant could move in.
The landlord also produced a witness statement from the prior tenants that confirms the prior tenants’ and the landlord cleaned the entire premise to a reasonably clean state, the mark on the dinning room ceiling was not mould and they had ben unable to remove the mark with sugar soap. The witness statement also says the oven and dishwasher were clean when the property was handed back to the landlord.
A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 6 , even if the tenant has noticed the state of the premise when entering into the tenancy agreement 7 . However, a reasonable state of cleanliness does not mean spotless. 8 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(1)(a). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(3). 8 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[25].
A tenant might be awarded compensation if premises are offered in a generally untidy condition but cannot immediately terminate the tenancy 9 . Unless the premise is uninhabitable, a landlord is entitled to reasonable time to remedy. 10
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 11 , not commercially clean 12 , spotless 13 or to a hotel or motel standard 14 . The better the premise and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected 15 .
The tenant was unable to produce sufficient evidence to prove the premise was not in a reasonable standard of cleanliness. The landlord’s evidence shows it was in a reasonable standard of cleanliness generally, but it was not spotless.
The tenant’s photographic evidence fails to meet the evidential burden of proof that the premise would not be considered to be reasonably clean by the standard an average reasonable bystander. Therefore, I dismiss the tenants claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages under this head of claim. Failure to maintain
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to her attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Rats, ants and bugs
The tenant claims she raised the issue of rat excrement in the kitchen draws and ants after she moved int the premise. She confirmed that she had never raised with the landlord the issue of the bugs that were biting her children and causing red itchy welts that were painful and kept them up at night.
The landlord produced WeChat messages that prove on 12 March 2025, the tenant provided pictures of lots of ants to the landlord and on 13 March 2025 the landlord provided ant poison to the tenant.
The tenant says this poison did not work and confirmed that she did not go back to the landlord to tell him that the poison was not working. Therefore, it was unable to consider other potential solutions. 9 Re Grant NZTT North Shore TT112/87, 24 December 1987 at [10]-[11]. 10 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[26]. 11 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 12 Mills v kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 at [15]-[17]. 13 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]; Herbert v Garton [2013] NZTT Hastings 237 at [42]; Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [206] NZTT Auckland 3149 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]. 15 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The landlord also provided proof that as soon as the tenant raised the potential rat issue, it installed a digital sonar rat device to ward rats off. The tenant confirmed this device worked and she had not seen any rats during her tenancy and there were no further rat dropping in the premise.
I find that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and dismiss it accordingly. Unpleasant odour and mould in the dining room
The tenant gave evidence the dining room had mould on the ceiling and the carpet in dining room smelt like “children’s pee”.
The landlord produced photographs that prove the house has no carpet. The landlord says it went to investigate and there was no smell at all in the dining room. The landlord produced photographic evidence that proves the ceiling in the dining room was not damp or wet and that the black marks were not mould. It also proved it has washed the marks with sugar soap and the marks would not move. The prior tenant also gave a witness statement that confirms the landlord’s evidence.
The tenant says on the day she moved in the landlord went through a thorough inspection with her and she mentioned the black mark and the landlord confirmed that he and the prior tenant had tried to clean it and it wouldn’t come off. She confirms the landlord told her to keep an eye on it and if it worsened the landlord would get someone in to investigate it further. The landlord assured the tenant the roof was not leaking, the ceiling was dry and there were no high moisture readings anywhere in the house.
I find that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and the landlord has disproved the claims. There is no evidence the tenant raised issues the landlord did not investigate and/or address in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances. I dismiss the claim accordingly. Oven and stove malfunctioning or not working
The tenant claims two elements on the stove and the oven did not work. She says she discovered this on the day she moved in. Specifically, she states the oven runs very hot and cannot be used to cook in, it is dirty and rusty so she did not want to use it and two of the four stove elements worked intermittently and were unreliable
The tenant says she told the landlord on the first day of the tenancy that he stove was not working and they had not eaten all day.
The prior tenant gave a witness statement that confirms the oven was working well when they moved out and two stove elements worked intermittently and two worked well.
The landlord confirmed that when he had done the exit inspection, the prior tenant informed him that two elements were not working. Because he had no time to have these elements repaired or replaced by the next day, the landlord brought an extra induction hot plate for the tenant to use and showed her children how to use it as she was not home.
The tenant stated the working element on the portable hotplate did not get hot enough to cook with and it turned down automatically when it gets to a certain temperature. She says it goes to between 800 to 1000 watts and that means cooing a meal is very slow. Further she provided evidence that this hot plate showed an error E5 when it over heated.
The landlord produced a voice message from tenant to LL on 19 March 2025 that says, “Thanks Brother Wang for showing us how it works and if you are worried you can come back” and “no need to fix it as I won’t use it. I only have one pot “. The landlord also stated the tenant told him “don’t worry about the oven I am not baking”. The tenant denies this.
The photograph of the oven shows it is clean and not rusty. The photograph of the drip tray shows it has seen better days and, although clean and rust free, it does show some signs of wear but it was not dirty. The drip tray is not in such a poor condition that it needs to be replaced.
The tenant moved out before the landlord could have the elements repaired or replaced.
I find that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and the landlord has disproved the claims. There is no evidence the landlord did not investigate and/or address these issues in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances. I dismiss the claim accordingly. Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with healthy homes information within the statutory timeframe after she requested it?
[The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1AC) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45 (1AC), a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has proven the tenant was provided with a healthy homes compliance statement and the healthy homes information required under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
I find that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and dismiss it accordingly.

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

[The tenant] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says the landlord entered the house with no notice or consent on 6 April 2025.
She confirmed she had moved out on 5 April 2025, after giving the landlord less than 24 hours’ notice but had not given the keys back. She says they had arranged a time for the landlord to pick up the keys at 1pm on 6 April 2025, but the landlord came earlier than the scheduled time. She says she was still paying rent for the property until 18 April 2025 and so had possession of the property when the landlord entered unlawfully.
The landlord stated that he had a complaint from the downstairs tenants that the smoke alarm was making loud noises and they wanted it attended to as the tenant had moved out and the noise was disrupting their quiet enjoyment of the premise. The landlord says it tried to contact the tenant and let her know he was going to go inside to remove the smoke alarm battery, but she did not respond. The tenant denies this and says that when she arrived at the premise, she found the landlord had been inside. The tenant confirmed she had no belongs at the house and there was no detriment to her of the landlord removing the smoke alarm battery at the request of the downstairs tenants.
Section 48(2) of the RTA gives the landlord the right to enter a premise in an emergency. The landlord considered this an emergency as until he investigated, he did not know if the alarm was faulty or whether there was a fire starting.
I am satisfied the landlord had a right to enter the premise to address the faulty smoke alarm issue and that the tenant suffered no loss of amenity, tress or inconvenience because of the landlord checking there was nothing smoldering in the vacant premise.
I find that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and the landlord has disproved the claims. I dismiss the claim accordingly.
The tenant also claimed there was an unlawful entry on 27 and 28 March 2025 when a Statistics New Zealand employee came to the house to give the tenants a form to complete for a labour survey. This scared the tenant. They then left a letter in the letter box. The landlord explained to the tenant this was not a scam and that it was up to her if she wanted to complete the survey or not. This is not an unlawful entry by the landlord.
The tenant also complained by WeChat that on 3 April 2025 three white people opened the gate a few times that day. The landlord confirmed these persons were likely from WaterCare and were reading the water meter and that if she was concerned, she should report them to the Police. This is not an unlawful entry by the landlord. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment/privacy?
The tenant claims the landlord and other persons have breached her quiet enjoyment of the property and her privacy.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 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. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010 considered the definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case 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 Judge accepted 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 would be 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.” Incident 1:Failure to change locks after prior tenant came in uninvited to laundry
The tenant says the prior tenants entered the garage/laundry when they came to make a request that if any mail came for them that the tenant contact them and they would come and get the mail.
As soon as the tenant raised this issue with the landlord, the landlord it called the prior tenants and told them if they needed something from the premise, they had to go through him or they were trespassing.
The landlord had not instructed the prior tenants to go to the house nor did it know they were going to do so. The landlord cannot be held responsible for a prior tenant calling into the premise nor for what the prior tenants did while they were at the premise. If the tenant had an issue with the prior tenants visiting and entering the garage, it was open to her to call the Police and get seek a trespass order if she was frightened.
I find that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. I dismiss the claim accordingly. Incident 2: Indians downstairs noisy at night- tenant thought she rented the entire house
The landlord confirmed the tenant was told about these tenants’ downstairs when she viewed the house. The tenant denies this.
The tenant says the Indian couple downstairs talk to each other loudly around midnight and it has affected her sleep. She says she raised this with the landlord around 20 March 2025, at same time as she raised the issues with the rubbish bins not being taken out.
The landlord says the tenant first raised this issue on 3 April 2025, not 20 March 2025. It spoke to the downstairs tenants as soon as it could and they told it they did not talk loudly after 10pm.
The landlord produced a WeChat message dated 3 April 2025 at 9:59pm from the tenant that reads: “Did you tell the downstairs people about the rubbish? I pushed the bin out this week, too. They are discriminating against and bullying me because I have just arrived in this country with limited English. Everybody has their starting points. I feel discriminated against. I initially wanted to rent an individual house to avoid any conflicts. I only knew the downstairs Indian couple when I was going to sign the contract. You said they were a lovely couple; I didn’t pay much attention. During the last 3 weeks, it was not like you said; they slept late and talked loudly. I didn’t sleep well. Do they know this house is not soundproof?” The landlord replied “I will talk to them over the weekend”. The tenant replied “Didn’t you talk to them about the rubbish bin last time?” The landlord replied “I visited the house, but they were not home”.
This WeChat message proves the tenant knew about the downstairs tenants before she entered into the fixed term tenancy.
The landlord had little to no time to address the noise issue with the downstairs tenants before the tenant moved out on 5 April 2025, but it did meet with and discuss the noise issue with the downstairs tenants. They denied making excessive noise and said they were quiet after 10pm each evening and had always been respectful of the tenants upstairs.
I find that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. I dismiss the claim accordingly. Healthy Homes Standards
[The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenancy commenced on 8 March 2025. Therefore, the landlord had to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, by 1 July 2025. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The tenant complained about some water in the garage via WeChat on 3 April 2025. This was the first time she the issue had occurred. She says she was scared the water would rise and ruin her washing machine.
The landlord confirmed the garage is on a slope and in heavy rain there is a bit of water that comes into the garage, and it drains away quickly. The landlord has had this investigated in the past and been told it is unavoidable because of the typography of the land the garage is situated on. The landlord confirmed that when the tenant viewed the house, she viewed it for 1.5 hours and it was explained to her that the garage can leak, and times and she was shown the three holes on the ground used to drain this water and she accepted this.
The tenant says the holes are peanut size and can’t drain the water in heavy rain. The photograph she produced showed a small stream of water moving through the garage and being drained by the holes. There was no evidence of a build up of water that would be concerning.
The landlord says it has never had any complaints from prior tenants, even during the January/2023 wet weather events the garage remained very dry.
After the tenant raised her concerns, the landlord had a healthy homes report done on 7 April 2025 and the premise was fund to be fully compliant, including recording the moisture ingress and drainage standard has been met.
I find that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and the landlord has disproved the claims. I dismiss the claim accordingly.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of the filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with its claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because the tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded with the claim, her claim for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The landlord and the tenant have applied for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has wholly succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct.
Non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details is ordered.
The tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded in her proceedings. However, I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct.
The tenant’s application for name suppression is granted and non-publication ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233157 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233157 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the break lease/re-letting costs?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the break lease/re-letting costs?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions