What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5258942 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 5258942?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258942?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258942?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12075754-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5258942 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 5258942?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258942?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258942?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12075754-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15B August Street, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5258942 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5258942 — net $473.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 28.4.2025	$1,000.00		Rent arrears to 28.4.2025
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,000.00	$527.00
Net award	$473.00
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$473.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5258942 — net $473.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 28.4.2025	$1,000.00		Rent arrears to 28.4.2025
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,000.00	$527.00
Net award	$473.00
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$473.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Aro Limited $473 by deduction from the bond as calculated in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Aro Limited: $473.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,887.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Mr Hiscock representing the landlord.
This was a fixed term tenancy that started on 7 May 2024 and was not due to end until 16 February 2026. However, the parties agreed to end the fixed term early on 28 April 2025 after a replacement tenant was found.
The tenant has applied for refund of her bond, subject to a correct accounting for rent arrears; compensation for various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA); and the filing fee on the application, following the end of the tenancy. Given that the tenancy has ended, the application for work orders is redundant and is dismissed.
The tenant has the burden of proving her claims. The standard of proof required is the usual civil standard of ‘on the balance of probabilities’. Put another way, the tenant must persuade me that what she says is more likely than not to be the case.
In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral testimony). The evidence must be reasonable; there should be no probative defects such as inconsistency or improbability to any material extent, and the evidence must be consistent or supported by other acceptable evidence. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight which must be taken into account when weighing all evidence.

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, and this is accepted by the tenant. The tenant had been waiting for the landlord to provide an accurate rent record. Has the landlord failed to maintain the property and/or failed to comply with Healthy

Homes Standards?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA. She has raised issues about an unsafe deck, a kitchen tap and pipe leak, a non-working/unsafe stove, a chimney draught; a front door draught and holes in the exterior.
Under section 45(1)(b) RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
It is well settled that the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises during the tenancy is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA the landlord must also comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The HHS sets out certain compliance requirements in respect of insulation, heating, ventilation, moisture ingress, drainage and draught stopping.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy, the premises were required to comply with HHS within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy. Therefore, the compliance date was 4 September 2024.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Deck
The tenant claims that the deck is unsafe and she provided photos showing its condition after the tenancy ended. She says that when she first moved into the premises, Mr Hiscock advised her that he would be doing work on the deck to repair it. She says that the work started sometime in January 2025, but after it was done, she still does not think the deck is safe. She says that some of the wooden boards are splitting, the boards are saggy in places; some areas appear rotted; there are various gaps and it generally appears not to be structurally sound.
Mr Hiscock confirmed that when he showed the tenant the premises he pointed out various patch repairs where he had replaced some boards. However, he advised of his intention to replace them with matching boards recycled from the neighbour’s deck below this flat. He discussed the program of works with the tenant and completed the work in January 2025. Mr Hiscock also confirmed that he is a qualified builder, previously registered as a licensed building practitioner. However, he has let his licence lapse. He did the deck repairs himself and in his opinion the repairs are to a good standard and there are no safety issues with the deck. He also does not recall the tenant raising the safety of the deck with him during the tenancy.
As mentioned above, the onus is on the tenant to prove her claims. There is no evidence other than her oral testimony that she advised Mr Hiscock about her concerns with the deck during the tenancy. There is also no independent evidence from a suitably qualified person to prove that there are defects and/or safety issues with the deck. In the absence of sufficient evidence, I must dismiss the claim. Kitchen tap/pipe leaks
The tenant alleges that the kitchen tap leaked and was replaced in December 2024 but it did not resolve the problem. She says that the leak from the tap caused water to stream down the outside of the pipe under the sink and she told the landlord about it. She reported it again to the landlord in late April 2025 and he gave her tape to put around the pipe which did not work.
Mr Hiscock says that the kitchen tap, and the under-sink pipe leaks are two separate issues. The tenant reported the kitchen tap had a constant drip and he replaced it with a mixer tap as requested by the tenant in December 2024. It did not fit properly, so the landlord sourced another tap and the issue was fixed.
Mr Hiscock says that between 18-21 April 2025, the tenant told him that the pipe under the sink was leaking but she would not let him come and investigate. He says that the tenant demanded that he give her some tape to put around the pipe, which he did. Shortly before the tenancy was due to end, Mr Hiscock inspected the premises on 26 April. He discovered that the tenant, when removing her dishwasher 2 weeks earlier, had not replaced the bung into the connecting pipe causing water from the pipe to leak into the cupboard. He found the bung on the windowsill. Once he fitted the bung back into the pipe, the leak stopped.
I consider the landlord addressed the tenants claims about the kitchen tap and the pipe and they were resolved in a reasonable timeframe. I also accept that the pipe leak was caused when the tenant arranged to have her dishwasher disconnected and did not put the bung back in place. There is no documentary evidence to prove that the tenant complained about any continuing problem with the tap or a leak prior to the last week of her tenancy. For those reasons, the claim is dismissed. Stove
The tenant claims that the bottom of the stove at the premises is rusted and likely to catch fire, so it is unsafe. Therefore, before her tenancy ended she bought a new stove costing $80 for the new tenant and seeks reimbursement from the landlord. She mentioned this issue in a text to the landlord dated 29 April 2025, after the tenancy ended and requested his approval to replace the stove at his cost.
Mr Hiscock says that when he inspected the premises on 26 April 2025 the original stove provided as part of the tenancy was in the kitchen and he told the tenant it would need to be cleaned. She did not advise him of any problem with the stove. On receiving her text of 29 April about the purchase of a replacement stove, he rang her and advised that as far as he knew the original stove was in working order and he did not give permission for the replacement stove to be installed. However, the new stove has been installed and the original stove is in the garage. Mr Hiscock says that he hasn’t checked it.
As I explained at the hearing, it was not the tenant’s responsibility to supply the replacement tenant with a new stove. If the stove was not working then the landlord would need to address this. A new stove has been installed without the landlord’s permission and in circumstances where the old stove hasn’t been checked to see if it is in working order. Therefore, I find the landlord is not liable for the cost of the stove.
The landlord also gave evidence that the new tenants told him that they bought the stove with $80 that this tenant gave them for cleaning the stove. However, rather than clean the stove, they decided to replace it. It may be that the cost of the stove is a matter in dispute between the outgoing and incoming tenants. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between tenants but they could pursue the matter in the Disputes Tribunal if they wish.
In summary, there is no evidence that the tenant advised the landlord about a faulty stove during the tenancy, nor that it is in fact faulty. The tenant also did not have the landlord’s permission to replace the stove at the landlord’s expense. Therefore, the claim is dismissed. The Chimney
There is a chimney in the lounge that also backs onto a bedroom which has been blocked. However, the tenant alleges that the top of the flue above the roof fine is uncovered so that bird droppings, birds nest materials and other debris falls through into the bedroom. She also claims that it is not properly blocked and lets in draughts. She produced photos taken towards the end of the tenancy. Most of the photos do not show the exposed part of the flue in the bedroom because it is covered in a blanket that the tenant put around it to try and block the gap and stop the draught. However, in one photo, there is straw or grass like material poking out from underneath the flue. She was unable to provide any documentary evidence that she reported the issue to the landlord.
Mr Hiscock says that the tenant has not complained about this issue during the tenancy. He also explained that the chimney has a flue that is blocked at the top and there is also a heat shield around the flue. He believes that material would not be able to get into the gap between the flue and the shield as shown in the tenant’s photos and he believes the photos are staged.
There is no documentary evidence to prove that the tenant complained about this issue before the tenancy ended. For that reason, the claim is dismissed. Draughts and gaps
The tenant complains about a gap under the front door and gaps in the exterior weatherboards that she says let draughts into the flat. However, there is no documentary evidence of her raising this as an issue with the landlord. There is also no evidence to establish that the house does not comply with the HHS with regard to draughts and gaps.
Overall, as explained at the hearing, dismissal of the various maintenance claims is not to say the claims were not valid, but there was insufficient evidence for me to find the claims proved to the required standard. The tenant says that she raised these matters with the landlord verbally and even gave him a verbal 14-day notice. Unfortunately, a verbal notice is difficult to prove, especially if the other party denies receiving it. For that reason, it is important for tenants to ensure they document their complaints in writing. A text or email to record the details and date of the complaint is a simple way to ensure proof is available later, if required. Additional comments about the tenancy agreement & healthy homes requirements
I noted during the hearing that the tenancy agreement signed by the parties did not contain all the information required under section 13A RTA. I asked the landlord whether there were some pages missing and whether he could produce a full copy of the agreement. He stated that to his knowledge the one- page document presented in evidence was the entire agreement. If that is the case, I record my warning at the hearing that this agreement does not comply with the requirements of s13A. In particular, the agreement does not have an HHS compliance statement; a statement about smoke alarms; nor an insurance statement. These statements have been a requirement for several years now and the landlord must ensure that the tenancy agreement he is using in respect of any rental properties is up to date and complies with the RTA.
While there was no evidence produced at the hearing to establish that the premises did not comply with the HHS in any particular respect, the landlord must complete an HHS compliance statement detailing how the premises comply in any current or future tenancy agreement. While the date for compliance with HHS has been phased in over the last six years and varied depending on the tenancy, the phase-in period has now ended and all private rentals must be compliant from 1 July 2025. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
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) RTA.
Furthermore, 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, repairs and maintenance. See sections 48(1) to (3) RTA. In this context “premises” does not include land or facilities, which means facilities provided by the landlord for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment of the tenant, such as lawns, gardens, carparks, recreational areas.
The premises in this case are on the middle level of a three-storey building with separate flats above and below. The carpark area and backyard lawns are shared spaces for all tenants. The tenant complains that Mr Hiscock had a habit of coming to the premises multiple times each week. While there is no issue with him coming to do the lawns and/or work on the other flats, the tenant was concerned when he would access her deck area unannounced. She asked him to give notice or at least knock on the door first to let her know he was there, but he did not to this. The tenant said that these unannounced visits made her and her daughter uncomfortable and at times frightened.
Mr Hiscock denies accessing the tenant’s deck so frequently but confirmed that he did conducted repairs to her deck during January 2025. He was vague about the exact dates and times but thought it was a total of 5 days during that month. He insists that he discussed the program of works with the tenant and told her the periods that he would be coming. However, he concedes that he did not put this in writing.
I consider that the tenant’s deck area was for her exclusive use and does not come under the definition of “land” or “facilities” which are excluded from the notice requirements under s48 RTA. Therefore, it follows that the landlord should give a formal notice to access the area under s48 or obtain the tenant’s consent before entering without a prior notice. I am satisfied on the evidence that he did not do this and there is certainly no documentary evidence of him giving notice of his intended dates and hours of work on the deck.
Even if the deck was considered to be “land” or “facilities” which the landlord could access without giving notice, where a landlord frequently accesses a deck area connected to premises, this could be considered an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in their use of the premises which is a breach of s38 RTA.
After carefully considering the evidence, I am persuaded that the landlord accessed the tenant’s deck frequently without giving adequate notice or warning which is a breach of both s 38 and 48 RTA. The tenant is entitled to some compensation for the interference. I award $500 which I consider is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
The tenant has largely succeeded with her claim including recovery of most of the bond. Therefore she is entitled to suppression and recovery of the filing fee. K Stirling, 04 July 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258942 — Rent arrears at 15B August Street, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258942 — Rent arrears at 15B August Street, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions