What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5265119 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 5265119?

Compensation: 2 week rent free perio…: $1,760.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Overpaid Water: $676.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Window stays reimburse…: $880.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $13,274.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5265119?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5265119?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12684856-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5265119 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 5265119?

Compensation: 2 week rent free perio…: $1,760.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Overpaid Water: $676.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Window stays reimburse…: $880.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $13,274.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5265119?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5265119?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12684856-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

21 Bronzewing Terrace, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5265119 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5265119 — net $5,438.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 07/10/2025	$13,274.29		5. The landlord made a cross-application seeking for termination, rent arrears and water rates arrears.
Compensation: 2 week rent free period		$1,760.00	2 week rent free period
Compensation: Window stays reimbursement		$880.00	Window stays reimbursement
Compensation: Overpaid water		$676.00	Overpaid water
Exemplary damages: Non-compliance with HHS		$1,000.00	Non-compliance with HHS
Total award	$13,274.29	$4,316.00
Net award	$5,438.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,438.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5265119 — net $5,438.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 07/10/2025	$13,274.29		5. The landlord made a cross-application seeking for termination, rent arrears and water rates arrears.
Compensation: 2 week rent free period		$1,760.00	2 week rent free period
Compensation: Window stays reimbursement		$880.00	Window stays reimbursement
Compensation: Overpaid water		$676.00	Overpaid water
Exemplary damages: Non-compliance with HHS		$1,000.00	Non-compliance with HHS
Total award	$13,274.29	$4,316.00
Net award	$5,438.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,438.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,438.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 6 October 2025. 5265119, 52730802
The tenancy began on 21 November 2024. It was originally for a fixed term tenancy until 21 November 2025 but the parties agreed to end the tenancy earlier on 7 October 2025.
The tenant claimed that: a. the premises was not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) and was not reasonably maintained; b. the electricals were not safe and there were ongoing power outages; c. there were excessive power bills ($200/week) due to the property’s condition; d. the landlord failed to lodge the bond within the legally required time; e. the landlord blackmailed the tenant with cash to move out; f. the landlord provided misleading information to the Tribunal; g. there was anti-social behaviour by the landlord including unannounced visits; and h. the Watercare bills were unfairly calculated for the tenant.
The tenant had sought for urgent rectification of the electrical safety issues, a fair rent reduction to reflect the property’s conditions and issues, reimbursement for excessive power bills, a clear agreement on the Watercare bills and protection from harassment and anti-social behaviour by the landlord.
The landlord made a cross-application seeking for termination, rent arrears and water rates arrears. The landlord also sought for exemplary damages for the tenant’s failure to allow the tradespeople entry.
To support their own respective claims, both parties provided extensive evidence including numerous photos and what seems to be the entire text message and Whatsapp message conversations.
I deal with the tenant’s application first. Tenant’s claims HHS non-compliance
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 19886 (“RTA”), a landlord must comply with the HHS and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I deal with HHS issue first.
Breaching any of these 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 RTA. 5265119, 52730803
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Tenancies that start between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025 must comply with the HHS within 120 days. That means that this premises needed to have been compliant with HHS by 21 March 2025.
However, there was no evidence of the premises being assessed for HHS compliance by the landlord before or during the tenancy. On the tenancy agreement, the landlord had filled in no details under the heating standard section except a note at the top of the page “reminder for me to install new heat pump at end of Autumn 2025 (April/May)”. For ceiling insulation, it was noted that segments were installed in 1997 in the top floor but the R-value had not been noted at all. For ventilation and moisture ingress and drainage standards, nothing had been filled in at all.
The HHS compliance statement was not signed by the landlord.
The tenant on her own volition went and got the premises assessed for HHS compliance on 14 May 2025. The premises failed in the ventilation and heating standards. There were no extractor fans in any of the bathrooms and there was no heat pump in the main living area. The premises was ocompliant with insulation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping.
The landlord installed the extractor fans on 1 June 2025. The landlord had intended to install the heat pump in May 2025 but could not due to being unable to come to an agreement with the tenant.
There was no evidence provided by the landlord to show that there was any effort to make the premises HHS compliant by the due date. The landlord had noted that the heat pump was going to be installed in April or May 2025 when the compliance date was 21 March 2025.
No effort had gone into completing even the HHS compliance statement at the beginning of the tenancy.
The premises was non-compliant with HHS by the due date.
I am satisfied that exemplary damages are warranted in the circumstances given that this was an intentional failure by the landlord and that the tenant had to resort to commissioning an HHS report herself to get the premise worked on.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,000.00 in exemplary damages. Premises was not provided or maintained in a reasonable state
The tenant claimed that the premises was not provided or maintained in a reasonable state. The tenant highlighted that the tenant had been told by the 5265119, 52730804 landlord that the previous tenant had lived at the premises for 16 years and that there were no issues. The tenant said that she had been misled into the tenancy by the landlord actively approaching her to get her to move into this premises and him telling her that there had been no issues in the last 16 years.
The tenant said that she had found many issues when she moved in. The tenant said that the shower hose was too sharp due to its age, there was odour in the water and the water was brown. The house was too dark and that cockroaches were coming down the open light sockets.
In March 2025, the tenant asked the landlord to come and have a look at the shower as the shower had mould. The tenant said that the kids were touching the mouldy silicone and putting it in their mouth which was no good. The landlord told her that he will get a tradesperson to reseal. The tenant told the landlord that her father could do the job. The landlord approved this and asked her to provide him with a receipt. However, this did not end up happening.
At the request of the tenant, on 23 April 2025, a professional plumber was called to give a quote to repair some plumbing issues. On a report dated 28 April 2025, the plumber noted that the upstairs shower had leaked quite significantly with water making the carpet wet on the adjoining room. The shower had cracks in the shower lining and that the mixer faceplates had not been silicone sealed. There was black mouldy silicon that had signs of previous repair attempts. The plumber noted water dripping out through a light fitting under the shower. This could have been an electricity issue as well.
The lower-level bathroom shower looked like it had same repairs as the shower above with black mouldy silicone.
The hot water cylinder also had a slow leak.
When the tenant provided this report to the landlord, the landlord promptly organised for the shower installers to come. The shower installers came at 4 pm on 30 April 2025 along with the landlord. However, the shower installer left due to issues with the tenant.
Another plumber was booked for 2 May 2025. The hot water cylinder was confirmed to be leaking. The landlord attempted to have it replaced but there were issues with getting permission from the tenant for access.
The hot water cylinder was finally replaced on 28 May 2025.
Around 30 May 2025, the tenant allowed the landlord to work on the shower replacement.
The landlord offered the tenant 2 weeks’ free rent of $1,760.00 for the disruption caused by the shower and hot water cylinder issues. 5265119, 52730805
The landlord also topped up the tenant’s pre-paid power account at the request of the tenant to offset any extra charges caused by the dehumidifiers running in the house.
I do not find that the landlord had intentionally neglected his maintenance requirement of the premises. Unless the previous tenant had raised the same issues previously, the landlord would not have known about any issues.
When the tenant had raised the issues during this tenancy, the landlord acted promptly to get the issues rectified. Any breach of quiet enjoyment or loss of use has been adequately compensated by the tenant being given 2 weeks of rent-free period.
The tenant had also raised concerns about the bathtub leaking and the need for toilet seats and cisterns to be replaced. The landlord had replaced the bathtub lining, the bath mixer, toilet seats and cisterns all at the request of the tenant although they may not have been required to be replaced.
The landlord had also replaced all the ceiling lights to LED lights as the tenant complained that the house was too dark and that cockroaches were coming down the openings in the light sockets in the ceiling.
To save the back-and-forth correspondences with finding suitable access times and to save the stress for both parties, the landlord had offered the tenant $10,000.00 to walk away from the tenancy. However, that was declined by the tenant.
Although the landlord has no obligation to install the safety window latches for the tenant, at the hearing, the landlord agreed to reimburse the tenant $880.00 for safety window latches that were installed by the tenant.
Having heard all the evidence, I do not find that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable state. I do not order any compensation or exemplary damages. The electricals were not safe and there were ongoing power outages
When the tenant raised issues with electricals and power outages, the landlord sent an electrician to the premises.
It was found that the electrical power trips were due to the many appliances being under the same fuse.
The tenant denied having run too many appliances at any one time.
I do not find that the tenant has proven this claim to the required standard. I do not have any evidence of electrical inadequacies from the premises. Excessive power bills 5265119, 52730806
The tenant attributed excessive power bills to the condition of the property.
The tenant was on a prepaid account and the landlord had topped up the tenant’s account when the shower leak was being repaired.
I do not find that there was any evidence of any power issues at the premises. I take notice of the fact that prepaid power accounts can have different rates to other providers.
I see no basis to award any compensation for this claim. Failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The bond was paid before the tenancy began in November 2024 but the bond was only lodged to the Bond Centre on 15 May 2025.
The landlord explained that the landlord was preoccupied having to deal with a new tenancy and the landlord moving himself. The landlord said that the previous tenant had been there for 16 years and that the bond was only lodged after getting advice from his lawyer that he was still able to lodge the bond.
The only real explanation that makes much sense from the landlord is that he had forgotten to lodge the bond.
I do not find that it was an intentional failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. When he was told about the bond not having been lodged, he promptly lodged it with the Bond Centre.
Although I acknowledge that the landlord had failed to comply with the legal requirement, I do not find that it was intentional. I decline to award any exemplary damages. I do not find that there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages in the circumstances. The landlord blackmailing the tenant with cash to move out
The landlord had offered the tenant around $10,000.00 to settle any issues and asked the tenant to move out earlier.
Having read through all correspondences between the parties, I do not find that it was an unreasonable offer from the landlord. If anything, I find that it was generous.
I do not find any issues with this. 5265119, 52730807 The landlord provided misleading information to the Tribunal
Although the tenant had raised this as an issue, I am unable to find that this is a valid claim.
Each party is entitled to present their side of the story. It is for the Tribunal to decide whether the party has proved their claims to the required standard.
This is not a valid claim and has not been considered. Anti-social behaviour by the landlord including unannounced visits
Although the tenant claimed that there was anti-social behaviour from the landlord including unannounced visits, I was unable to find the same having read through all correspondences between the parties.
It is acknowledged that there was a breakdown of relationship between the parties but I do not find that there was anti-social behaviour, any harassment or unannounced visits by the landlord.
I dismiss this claim. Watercare bills being unfairly calculated
The tenant claimed that the water bills were being unfairly apportioned.
The premises was divided into 2 living spaces with the landlord’s parents living downstairs and the tenant living upstairs with her two children. There was only one water meter for the whole house. Power was separate for the two floors.
As there were 3 people living upstairs and 2 downstairs, the landlord had divided up the water bills and attributed 65% of it for upstairs and 35% of it for downstairs.
Section 39(3) RTA states that the tenant is only responsible for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s use of the facilities. This section prohibits the percentage-based calculation that was used by the landlord.
This means that the Watercare bills were not only unfairly calculated but that they were illegally calculated.
During the tenancy, the tenant had paid the landlord $676.00 for water bills. The landlord must reimburse this amount back to the tenant. Landlord’s cross-application
I now turn to the landlord’s cross-application. 5265119, 52730808
The application for termination was no longer required by the time of the hearing as the parties had agreed for the tenancy to be terminated the day after the hearing.
The total rent payable from 21 November 2024 to 7 October 2025 at $880.00 per week is $40,354.29. The tenant had paid $27,080.00 towards rent. The rent arrears owing to the end of the tenancy on 7 October 2025 was $13,274.29. The 2 weeks of rent-free period is deducted separately as above.
There was evidence of the tenant refusing the pay citing various reasons to not pay. None of the reasons justified withholding rent or any reduction of rent other than the 2 weeks’ rent-free period considered above.
Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay the landlord $13,274.29 for rent arrears.
For water arrear, for the reasons outlined above, the landlord is not entitled to recover water bills. Exemplary damages for refusing tradespeople entry
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy 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) RTA.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA.
There had been difficulties with securing a time that worked for the tenant due to the tenant having 2 young children with one requiring extra care.
It was not possible for the tenant to accommodate multiple tradespeople working on multiple places at the same time.
There were times when the children had been sick and the tenant not being available.
The landlord had taken it that the tenant was unreasonably refusing the landlord’s contractors access to the premises. The tenant had taken this as landlord’s antisocial behaviour and breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.
I find that there was reasonable excuse for the tenant to refuse the landlord’s request for access for work. The tenant did allow access when it was possible for the tenant.
Therefore, I dismiss this claim. 5265119, 52730809 Filing fee reimbursement and name suppression
Because both parties only had partial success with their applications, I do not order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the request of the parties, the names of the parties are suppressed. The address itself is not.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5265119 — Rent arrears at 21 Bronzewing Terrace, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5265119 — Rent arrears at 21 Bronzewing Terrace, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions