What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5241076 about?

The tribunal order states: Strata Nominees Limited Daniella Watene must pay Jacqueline Cotton

How much money was awarded in case 5241076?

Compensation: Breach of agreement to…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain dr…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241076?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241076?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12176186-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5241076 about?

The tribunal order states: Strata Nominees Limited Daniella Watene must pay Jacqueline Cotton

How much money was awarded in case 5241076?

Compensation: Breach of agreement to…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain dr…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241076?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241076?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12176186-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

290A Ostrich Road, Patumahoe, RD 4, Pukekohe 2679 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5241076 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241076 — net $1,250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain drawers	$150.00	Failure to maintain drawers
Compensation: Breach of agreement to install water filters	$300.00	Breach of agreement to install water filters
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with HHS	$800.00	Failure to comply with HHS
Net award	$1,250.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,250.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241076 — net $1,250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain drawers	$150.00	Failure to maintain drawers
Compensation: Breach of agreement to install water filters	$300.00	Breach of agreement to install water filters
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with HHS	$800.00	Failure to comply with HHS
Net award	$1,250.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,250.00

Order

Strata Nominees Limited Daniella Watene must pay Jacqueline Cotton $1,250.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on the 23 July 2025.
The tenancy premises are a 1-bedroom cottage on a rural property, with a large section.
The cottage was built in or around 2017.
The tenant has lived in the property since 2022. She tells me that she first started renting the property whilst the previous owner was marketing the property for sale, and as a result of that had cheaper rent.
The landlord purchased the property in October 2023. The property has another house on it which was tenanted, and also 40 acres of farm land.
The landlord says that they purchased the property for commercial reasons for their business. Although they had been previous residential tenancy landlords, they had not been landlords since 2005.
The tenancy ended on the 11 January 2025 after the tenant gave notice. On the 12 January the tenant and the landlord did an inspection and as a result of that inspection the landlord returned the bond to the tenant.
On the 27 April 2025the tenant filed her claim with the Tribunal, she claims: a. That the landlord failed to include compliance information on Healthy Homes Standards in the tenancy agreement. b. That the landlord failed to comply with Healthy Homes Standards- drainage and ventilation. c. That the landlord failed to maintain the property to a reasonable condition:
That the barge board on the roof was lifting.
That the kitchen and wardrobe doors identified as being deficient at the beginning of the tenancy had not been repaired.
That the shower dome was not repaired.
That the bathroom floor was soft.
That the hedges were not maintained.
That the lawnmower was not kept in a reasonable condition meaning that the lawns could not be mowed. d. That the landlord had not supplied potable water and had failed to install water filter when asked.
The tenant seeks compensation of $13,056.00 and exemplary damages where appropriate.
The landlord filed their claim on the 10 May 2025 they claim: a. That the tenant’s animals chewed on the deck balustrades causing damage. The landlords are seeking $2860.16 to replace the ballustrades. b. Removal of rubbish, exercise equipment, bbq table, car parts and tyres $1000.00 c. Removal of trailer dumped at property at the end of the tenancy - $100.00 The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” Relevant legal principles – compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
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. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must consider the factors set out in section 109 (3) RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person • The effect of the unlawful act • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. DECISIONS AND REASONS. Healthy homes statements in the tenancy agreement.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not include healthy homes statements in her tenancy agreements. s13A (1CA) RTA. That provision provides: The landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord,— (a) that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).
Section 13A(1F) RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include a healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750.00 for failure to provide the statements.
These provisions mean that the landlord must certify that they will comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and detail the current level of compliance in the tenancy agreement. The purpose of the provisions are to make it clear to both parties from the outset of the tenancy what the current level of compliance to the Healthy Homes Standards, and what if anything will require remediation.
The landlord signed the tenancy agreement on the 7 September 2023, the tenant signed the tenancy agreement on or around the 5 October 2023 for the tenancy to begin on the 19 October 2023. The landlord told the tenant at that time that they would include the Healthy Homes Statements in the agreement once thy took possession and got a report completed. The landlord accepts that they did not get a report completed until December 2024. The landlord accepts that it did not include the Healthy Homes Statement in the tenancy agreement but says that the tenant never raised any complaint about the Healthy Homes until November 2024.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not comply with s13A(1CA) RTA, but I do not award any compensation or exemplary damages for this breach for the following reasons: a. For an award of exemplary damages to be made, the breach must have occurred within 12 months of the date of application (see s109(2) RTA). As the tenancy agreement was signed more than 12 months before the application no award can be made. b. The failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards will be dealt with in this decision and any award for compensation under that provision will take the failure to address the level of compliance at the beginning of the tenancy into account. c. The tenant did not raise the question of Healthy Homes compliance from October 2023 to November 2024. Healthy Homes Compliance.
All landlord must ensure that that the tenancy premises comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) – s45(1)(bb) RTA.
The tenant says that she became increasingly concerned about the levels of compliance with the HHS in late 2024 because of several ongoing maintenance issues at the property which the tenant felt were not being addressed. On or about the 30 November she requested a copy of the healthy homes report from the landlord. The landlord did not have one; so set about getting the property assessed. On the 10 December the property was assessed by an independent assessor. The property failed two standards: (1) Drainage and moisture- because the gutters needed cleaning. The report says that they were blocked with beer cans and debris and plant matter. (2) Ventilation- bathroom extraction fan not installed. As a result of the report the landlord cleaned the gutters and installed a bathroom ventilation system in December 2024 and therefore the property was fully compliant by the end of the tenancy on the 11 January.
I am satisfied that the landlord breached s45(1)(bb) by failing to ensure compliance with the HHS for drainage and ventilation.
Whilst I can award both compensation and exemplary awards for this breach, I consider it appropriate to only award the tenant exemplary damages for this breach, as the exemplary damages take into account the effect on the tenant.
I am satisfied that the landlord committed this breach intentionally as it is clear that they knew from their correspondence with the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy, that they were required to meet HHS and that they had arranged this for the other tenants in the other premises on the property. Failure to maintain.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the property. Landlords have an obligation to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition taking into account the age and character of the premises. (s45(1)(b RTA).
The landlord’s obligation to repair is not absolute, a landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage, and a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as damage becomes apparent as to the need for repair. Together these obligations mean that a landlord has a responsibility to only repair and maintain items after they are broken or damaged or a reasonably observable as being damaged and in need of repair. Mould in the cupboards and heat pump.
The heat pump and the kitchen cupboards are on the same wall. In October 2024 the tenant had asked for the heat pump to be serviced. In early November the tenant noticed mould in the heat pump and notified the landlord also saying that it smelt and again requested that the heat pump be serviced. The landlord had the heat pump serviced on the 14 November.
On the 5 December 2024 the tenant noticed mould growing at the back the kitchen cabinets. The mould was sudden and widespread. It appeared indicative of a problem with the kitchen cabinetry.
The tenant immediately notified the landlord.
The tenant cleaned the mould off and gave notice soon after (on the 10 December), because of a health condition the tenant could not risk living in a property that had a mould issue.
There can be many reasons that mould can appear at a property, it can be caused by leaks or water ingress, condensation or lack of ventilation or drying or a combination of all of those factors.
If a tenant notices a problem with the mould which may have been caused by a defect with the property, then they have an obligation to notify the landlord. This is because the existence of mould can indicate an underlying defect in the property such as roof leak, or a leaking pipe in the wall. Likewise, a landlord should investigate the cause of mould complained of by a tenant or seen at an inspection.
The landlord says that they have investigated the tenant’s mould complaint, after the tenant left and they cannot find any defect or leak in the property. They say that since the tenant cleaned the mould, there has been no recurrence of the mould. There is a possibility water leaked inside because of the gutters being blocked causing the mould.
I am not satisfied from the evidence provided that I can determine with any likelihood what caused the mould. If the cause of the mould was the water ingress because of the gutters not being cleared, then that is dealt with in this decision under the failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards. 1 Barge Board.
The tenant said that after discovering the mould in the cupboards on one side of the house and the mould on the heat pump, which is situated on the same wall, she became concerned about a water ingress problem on that wall. The tenant said that she noticed the barge board looked like it had separated from the house. She poked the board with a stick and the whole eve moved upwards away from the roof showing that there was a gap where water could enter. The tenant says that she told the landlord about this issue. The landlord disputes that the tenant told them, and says it was not aware of the issue until these proceedings. There is no evidence that the tenant told the landlord in writing about this defect.
Given the dispute as to whether the landlord was told about the problem with barge board, and the short amount of time (10 December to 11 January) between the defect was noticed and the end of the tenancy, I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to maintain or repair the barge board. It is not clear whether the landlord was told of the problem, or even if the barge board moving was in fact a problem. There is no evidence that this was the cause of any moisture getting into the home. Kitchen drawers and drawer front plate in the wardrobe.
These two items were identified as defective by the tenant in an inspection completed on the 22 November 2023. The tenant clearly drew these issues to the landlord’s attention. The tenant also asked about the repair of these items during the tenancy. 2 Whilst the items were not urgent the kitchen doors in particular were coming off their tracks and were difficult and annoying to use.
The tenant issued a 14 day notice to remedy these items on the 30 November 2024. The landlord had the drawers fixed within 14 days.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to fix the drawers in a reasonable time. I award the tenant $150 for this breach, this takes into account the fact that she could still use the drawers in the kitchen, but that to do so was annoying and she was worried about causing more damage and that the tenant remined the landlord of the problem during the tenancy. The shower dome. 1 In Manage My Rental v Baxter [2015] NZDC 12011 the District Court held that if one incident is the source of multiple breaches then the breaching party should only be sanctioned once. 2 In a text message to the landlord sent on the 3 February 2024 the tenant said “I do still need the kitchen drawers looked at at some stage but I have managed a year, so no rush.”
The shower dome was not attached because it appeared the silicon or glue had failed. Again, this was an item that was clearly addressed in the inspection of the November 2023. In February 2024 the tenant’s son applied silicon to the shower dome. That fixed the problem for a little while but then the silicon failed and it started to move again, near the end of the tenancy, whilst cleaning the shower the shower dome fell into the shower and broke.
I am satisfied that the landlord understood that the shower dome had been repaired by the tenant’s son and there was no further action required by them. Therefore, there was no failure to repair because they were unaware that there was a problem. The bathroom floor.
The tenant pointed out in the inspection video of the November 2023 that the floor was soft “from a previous leak” (which the tenant clarified was before her time of living there). The landlord did not investigate the soft floor boards until after the tenancy had ended, they say the softness was caused by water from when someone got out of the shower running to the same place which had caused the glue on the laminate for to come free, making it ‘spongy’ to walk on. The sub floor was not damaged so all the landlord had to do was to remove the excess glue and re- adhere it, which they did.
I do not consider that the landlord breached s45(1)(b) in respect of the bathroom floor, because when the tenant pointed out the defect at the beginning of the tenancy, it was in the context that she was identifying existing damage so she would not be blamed for causing the damage during her tenancy. The soft flooring only caused minor disruption or inconvenience to the tenant and the tenant did not suffer a lack of amenity. The hedges.
There is a hawthorn hedge that acts as a boundary fence around the tenant’s section. The hawthorn hedge has sharp prickly thorns. The hedge is the landlord’s responsibility and needs maintenance. The tenant says that the previous landlord kept the hedge well maintained and did not let it grow unsightly or large. The tenant says that she asked for the hedge to be cut when it got too large 3 but that the landlord did not do so. The tenant also says that the failure to cut the hedge regularly meant that privet grew in the hedge and that she is allergic to privet.
The landlord said that they accept that privet grew in the hedge but says that the privet occurred because it is ‘everywhere’ in the local rural area and 3 There is a text message where the tenant asked about this in January 2024, the landlord replied that it would get done annually. therefore cannot be avoided. They say cutting the hedge would not have meant that the privet would not have grown.
The landlord says that they engaged the contractor that the previous owner had used, and he told them when the hedge should be trimmed. The landlord says that as the property had been for sale before they owned it had been kept to a much higher standard than what was normal to make it presentable. The landlord said that they thought the hedge should be cut annually and understood that it was last cut sometime around October 2023 when they brought the property. They also say that when the tenant gave them a 14 day notice that they had the hedges cut on the 3 December 2025.
I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to maintain the hedges. Whilst they did grow large, and the tenant complained about them and perhaps the landlord should have got them cut earlier than they did, the landlord did cut the hedge after the 14 day notice was given. I do not consider that the tenant suffered any loss as a result of the time it took to cut the hedges. There is no evidence, other than the tenant’s opinion to support the tenant’s claim that if the hedges had been cut earlier then the privet could not have grown. The area does have a lot of privet and privet was especially prevalent last year. The lawn mower.
The tenant accepted responsibility for the lawnmowing in the tenancy agreement. The tenant’s section is about an acre. The tenant says she only agreed to mow the lawn because the landlord said that they would provide the ride on mower for her and the tenants in the other house to use.
The tenant says that there were several issues with the ride on mower. It appears that the tenant attended to maintenance and repair of the mower without telling the landlord, but when these became excessive in February 2024 she informed the landlord, and the landlord reimbursed her for the costs she had incurred. In November 2024 the lawnmower broke down again, the tenant informed the landlord, and the landlord came and got the ride on mower and took it away to get fixed (the mower was taken on the 11 November and returned on the 13 December). The landlord says that the auto electrician that fixed the lawnmower told them that the lawnmower was probably broken because of the way it had been used. The landlord also told the tenant in a text message that they auto electrician was waiting on parts. The tenant disputes that the way that she used the ride on mower caused it to need repair.
I am not satisfied that the landlord breached any obligation to the tenant. The landlord repaired the lawnmower within a reasonable timeframe. It was the tenant’s choice to buy a handheld mower to mow the lawn. I do not consider that her decision to purchase the mower was out of necessity to meet her obligations. The landlord had not raised any suggestion that the tenant was in breach of her obligations. From time-to-time items like lawnmowers will need repair. This might have meant that the tenant’s lawns were unable to be mown for some time and might have looked untidy for a period, but once the mower was back in action this could have been rectified. At the end of the tenancy the landlord told the tenant not to worry about the lawns. Water.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not provide her with potable water. The tenant says that the water is from a tank, and that at times she has complained of a bad smell in the water from the tank, that when the neighbours looked in the water tank they reported that the tank was sludgy. The tenant also said that there was no filters on the tank or the taps. The tenant says she had to buy bottled water to prevent herself getting sick. The tenant asked the landlord on numerous occasions to install filters, and while the landlord agreed to do that the landlord did not do so until after the tenant gave a 14 day notice on the 30 November 2024.
The landlord says that the water is both bore and rainwater feed. The landlord accepts that the tenant complained of the smell and says that they investigated and could not see or smell anything in the tank. The landlord accepts that the tenant asked for filters, which they agreed to but says that they simply dd not get around to installing them because they weren’t a priority.
The landlord accepts that they knew at the beginning of the tenancy that the tenant was either boiling or buying bottled water but says that this was one of the factors that they took into consideration when setting the rent. The landlord says that the rent was lower to take into account the inconvenience and or expense of boiling water or buying bottled water.
The landlord also says that when the tenant complained of a bad smell that they investigated it promptly and could not find any issue or notice any smell.
There are two requirements that landlords must fulfil in respect of drinking water under the RTA, these are s45(1)(ca) which requires landlords to provide for the adequate means of collection and storage of water and s45(1)(c) which requires a landed to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment as they relate to the premises.
The question of what a landlord is required to do in order to ensure that the water was safe was discussed in detail in the recent District Court decision of Sutherland v Ericson [2025] NZDC 7526. The District Court confirmed that s39(1)(a) of the Health Act requires the provision of potable water. Potable was previously defined in the s69G of the Health Act 1956 , but that provision was repealed and replaced by the Water Services Act 2021. The District Court considered an analysis of what potable meant from various sources and concluded that it is” (a) water that is safe to drink; and (b) complies with drinking water standards. The first limb of the definition of “potable water” is consistent with the ordinary and dictionary meanings of “potable.” The second limb refers to a new statutory definition of “drinking water standards” also inserted into the Health Act by the Water Services Act. “
The District Court further went on to say that as the landlord’s duty is a statutory one, it is not necessary for the tenant to give notice if the tenant considers that there has been a breach. It is incumbent on the landlord to ensure that the premises complies with all Heath and Safety and Building Act requirements.
There is no statutory requirement for tank water to be filtered or treated in any way. There are recommendations about what a landlord or home owner should do to make sure that the water supply is safe, such as cleaning gutters, cleaning tanks and installing filters, but these are not mandatory.
Neither party had the water at the property tested for pathogens, therefore there is no way of knowing one way of the other that the water was not potable (safe to drink). In the absence of any testing, or other corroborating or supporting evidence then it is difficult for tenants to prove that the water was not safe to drink.
I am therefore not satisfied from the evidence provided that the water was unsafe to drink and therefore there is no breach of s45(1)(c) RTA.
However, I consider that the landlord was in breach of the agreement that they made with the tenant to install water filters at the property. A landlord can agree to do something more for a tenant that what is required of them in the RTA. (see s11). Once they agree to do something then they should follow through with that promise otherwise it will be a breach of the contract they have with the tenant.
The first time that the landlord agreed to install water filters was in November 2023. The tenant then reminded the landlord of the filters later that month, December 2023, January 2024, February 2024 and later in the tenancy. I award $300 to the tenant for this breach of contract, this takes into account the length of time after the landlord said that they would install water filters and did not.

Should exemplary damages be awarded for the breaches?

I have found that the landlord failed to comply with Healthy Homes Standards and failed to maintain the kitchen drawers and wardrobe drawers. Breaches under s45(1)(b) Failure to maintain, and s45(1)(bb) -Failure to meet Healthy Homes Standards are both breaches under s 45(1A) RTA to which exemplary damages of up to $7200.00 may be awarded.
The District Court has held that when there are multiple breaches under this section (section 45(1A) RTA) that the maximum award is $7,200.00. 4 4 Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583.
I award the tenant $800 for this failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards, in coming to this award I have taken into account the following factors: • That the landlord had a high level of intentionality – they knew that they should have the property assessed for Healthy Homes Compliance but did not do so. • That the landlord acted quickly when the tenant raised the issue in November 2024. • That the tenant did not raise the issue with the landlord until 13 months after the tenancy had begun even though the tenant said in a text message with the landlord in November 2023 that she knew the HHS requirements as part of her job. 5 • That the failure of two standards meant that the tenant had been living in housing that did not meet two standards. The tenant had a serious health complaint at the end of the tenancy, and it was important that she lived in a healthy home. • That there is public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with the standards that when they don’t that there is a sufficient amount awarded so as to act as a deterrent to other landlords. The landlords’ claims.
The landlord is claiming for a damaged balustrade and removal of rubbish and items that the landlord says was left at the end of the tenancy and that the landlord had to dispose of.
The tenant and the landlord conducted a vacate inspection together on the 12 January 2025. During and after the inspection the landlord did not raise any concerns with the tenant about the condition of the property, in fact the landlord described the inside of the property as ‘immaculate’. The landlord signed the bond form and the bond was returned to the tenant in full. The balustrades
The landlord claims that the tenant’s animals have chewed on the balustrades of the balcony. The landlord has had a quote to repair the balustrade but has not repaired it.
I am not satisfied that the balustrades are so damaged that they need repair or replacement, because they have not been replaced and the property has been relet. I am also not satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, because the inspection that was completed at the beginning of the tenancy did 5 This was part of a discussion when the tenant had asked the landlord is she could temporarily put a cabin on her section. not focus on any issues on the balcony. It was therefore impossible to determine whether the damage occurred during the tenancy or not. The items the landlord claims had to be removed.
The landlord says that the tenant left the couch and drum behind and that there was car parts and other rubbish under the hedge. The landlord had a dated photograph taken on the day of the vacate inspection showing the couch and drum that had not been removed. The tenant says that it was removed and says that the landlord never raised with her the removal of the couch and the drum.
The landlord says that they removed the items themselves. I have two conflicting and equally credible accounts about what happened to the drums and couches. In such cases I cannot say one is more likely than the other. I do not have evidence that shows rubbish or car parts being left behind under the hedge. I am also mindful that the landlord had accepted the property in the state it had been left in and therefore I do not consider that the tenant should be liable for any costs of removal. The trailer
I am also satisfied that the tenant is not liable for the costs of removing a trailer that was parked outside the property preventing access a few days after the tenancy ended. The tenant says her son’s trailer, loaded with items from the property, was stolen a day or so before the tenancy ended. It was reported to Police and a couple of days later was found by Police abandoned at Karaka. When her son went to retrieve the trailer, he realised he needed other equipment, and went to get that equipment. When he got back to the site where the trailer had been abandoned, the trailer was gone again. Police told the tenant’s son that someone from Auckland Traffic Management must have picked it up. The next day the landlord found the trailer outside the premises. They did not know it belonged to the tenant or her son. When they reported it to Police the Police told them to move it to one side, which they did and the trailer later was picked up.
The tenant says that her son did not put the trailer in front of the tenancy premises and the landlord accepts that it did not incur any cost in removing it, apart from time in discussing with Police and moving it to one side.
The most plausible explanation is that the trailer was taken and disposed of at Karaka, someone who found it there then linked it back to the tenancy address and dropped it off there (possibly Auckland Traffic Management).
As this occurred outside of the tenancy and the landlord did not actually incur any cost of disposing of it, then the landlord is not entitled to any compensation and their claim is dismissed. Filing fee
As neither party has been wholly successful in their claims each party will bear their own costs of filing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241076 — Healthy homes at 290A Ostrich Road, Patumahoe, RD 4, Pukekohe 2679

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241076 — Healthy homes at 290A Ostrich Road, Patumahoe, RD 4, Pukekohe 2679

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be awarded for the breaches?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be awarded for the breaches?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions