What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5265140 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5265140?

Compensation: $1,259.27 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5265140?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5265140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12198745-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5265140 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5265140?

Compensation: $1,259.27 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5265140?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5265140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12198745-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

123 Matarawa Road, Kinleith, Tokoroa 3491 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5265140 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5265140 — net $4,486.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation Electricity	$1,259.27	Compensation Electricity
Exemplary damages: Breach Healthy Homes Standards	$900.00	Breach Healthy Homes Standards
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$1,300.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: Insurance documents	$200.00	Insurance documents
Exemplary damages: Termination without grounds	$800.00	Termination without grounds
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,486.27
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,486.27

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5265140 — net $4,486.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation Electricity	$1,259.27	Compensation Electricity
Exemplary damages: Breach Healthy Homes Standards	$900.00	Breach Healthy Homes Standards
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$1,300.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: Insurance documents	$200.00	Insurance documents
Exemplary damages: Termination without grounds	$800.00	Termination without grounds
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,486.27
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,486.27

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
All other claims are dismissed.
Maungakiekie Limited Kim Belfield must pay [The tenant/s] $858.12 immediately.

Reasons

The matter was first heard as a pre-hearing video case conference where the claims were identified. A minute was issued on 16 June 2025. In attendance were Mr and Mrs McKay and Ms Belfield. It was established at this hearing that Ms Belfield was the property manager acting as agent for Maungakiekie Limited, MKK farms.
A face-to-face hearing was held on 30 June 2025 attended by the tenants Mr and Mrs Mackay, Ms Belfield and her support person Mr. Bates, who is also a director of the company that owns the farm.
Ms Belfield confirmed that the directors of Maungakiekie Limited, MKK farms, are Rex and Loris Bates. A copy of the company extract was provided confirming this.
The tenants had a contract milking agreement, CMA, with MKK farms which was signed on 13 Feb 2024, began on 1 June 2024 and ended on 31 May 2025. As part of the CMA premises were provided and the agreement states that the RTA applies to the tenancy.
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims in relation to residential tenancies and this includes service tenancies. ’Service tenancy’ means a tenancy granted under a term of or as an incident of, a contract of service or a contract for services...’ See Section 2, Residential Tenancies Act 1896, RTA.
I find that this is service tenancy and comes within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
An incident occurred at the cowshed on the farm on 16 April 2025 when the tenants came to milk. They said that there was no power on at the shed and left without milking.
The landlord, Ms Belfield said that she had turned off the power to the cowshed to prevent them from milking because there was a drought and believed that milking would compromise animal health. She said that this was based on advice from a vet and farm adviser.
When the landlord returned to the cowshed, she found that it has been tampered with and damaged. She alleges that this included the power to the farm had been turned off, some switches to water pumps left on or off, a bottle of acid missing, farm gates not working and a milk sensor broken.
She said that security videos showed that only the tenants had been there in the time between Ms Belfield leaving and returning and she believed that they had caused the damage. The landlord called Pratt milking machines, an electrician and Fonterra to attend to repairs and check the shed and milk supply.
This information is provided as a background. These claims are being pursued by the parties in another jurisdiction and the Tenancy Tribunal is unable to investigate these allegations.
The tenant has sought orders in relation to retaliatory notice, compensation for power usage, breaches of Healthy Home Standards including draughts moisture and drainage, ventilation, and exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises, breach of quiet enjoyment and for failure to supply insurance information. The tenant updated their claim to include exemplary damages claim for landlord terminating without grounds. Retaliatory notice
On 15 May 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice under section 53(2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA ending the tenancy on 19 May 2025 .The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory and filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal on 16 May 2025.
A termination notice may be declared retaliatory and of no effect where within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy, the tenant applied for an order declaring such on the ground that the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants said that they sent a notice to the landlords raising concerns about breaches of the RTA which were contained in the Notice of Dispute relating to the Contract Milking agreement. The same day they received a letter terminating the CMA. This order does not make any determination of those claims but recognises that they were raised.
Based on the evidence provided at the hearing I find that the termination of the service tenancy was a result of the termination of the CMA. These were linked due to the alleged damage as grounds for termination of the CMA and claim of substantial damage to the tenancy if the tenants were to stay.
The dispute concerning the CMA had begun prior to the 15 May 2025 and the letter of 15 May 2025 from the landlords’ solicitors clearly states the grounds on which the termination was based. There was no evidence persuading me that the action of the landlords in terminating the tenancy were retaliatory.
This claim is dismissed. Compensation for excess power usage
The tenant claimed that they had been charged excessively for power used at the premises and provided copies of the electricity bills from July 2024 to November 2024 which ranged from $624.38 to $1088.89.
They told the landlord their concerns and the power metre was investigated. Copies of texts dated 17 October were provided discussing the power usage.
It was discovered that there was a leak form a pin hole in the copper wire coming from the hot water cylinder and the water had been leaking under the house which resulted in the high power use. Neither party had noticed any signs of this.
When this was fixed on 7 November 2024 the power bills reduced.
The landlord confirmed that the cylinder was replaced in December 2023 but the landlord could not confirm if the copper wire was also replaced at that time.
The tenant sought reimbursement of $2499.43 for the extra power used. The tenant calculated this by working out the average monthly electricity bill after the leak had been fixed as $458.12, and subtracting this from the amount charged while there was a hot water leak. The total claimed is the balance of all the extra charges.
I find that the damage to the copper pipe is a maintenance issue and the landlord’s responsibility. The average used by the tenant was calculated over the summer months and electricity consumption is less during this time.
I award half the amount sought by the tenant as compensation for extra electricity charges, being $1259.27. Healthy Homes Breaches
This is a service tenancy and is a tenancy that must comply with the requirements of the RTA. The CMA signed by the parties makes specific reference to the RTA in clause 19.5 titled ‘Accommodation’ which states The parties acknowledge that the provision of the accommodation to the contractor is a service tenancy, and that this agreement constitutes a tenancy agreement for the purposes of the Residential tenancies act 1986. For the purposes of this agreement the contractor is the tenant, and the owner is the landlord.
The owner confirmed that the premises were Healthy Homes compliant, but the compliance statement in the tenancy agreement was not completed. Each claimed breach under this section will be determined and a global award made, if required, at the end of this section.
[The tenant/s] 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).
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. Ventilation
Nigel McKay and Debra McKay claimed that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
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 tenants CMA states 19.15.5 that open windows in the living room, dining room, kitchen and bedrooms and extraction fans vented to the outside indoor bathroom and kitchens...... are required and to be compliant with the ventilation standards and subpart 4 of the Residential Tenancies, (Healthy Home Standards) Regulations 2019.
The landlord agreed that there are no ventilation fans in the bathroom or the kitchen and that not all of the windows in the premises open. She said that each room does have some windows that open.
The tenant provided a photograph of a set of 3 windows in the main bedroom that were sealed shut and covered with polystyrene. She said that there were doors and another window that opened in the room.
I find that the landlord breached this standard and I find Maungakiekie Limited Kim Belfield committed an unlawful act. Draught Stopping
Nigel McKay and Debra McKay considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
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.
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).
In the CMA 19.15.10 requires adequate protection against draughts through closing off open and unused fireplaces .... and sealing of all gaps ... consistent with subpart 5 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Home Standards) Regulations 2019.
One door from the laundry to the outside had a piece missing that was never replaced. The tenant said that there were windows with evidence of tape having been around the edges and a small gap where the doors did not meet.
I find that it was not established that these caused draughts. The claims in relation to an unattached unlived in service shed are dismissed and only the small gap from the laundry door I find is established as a breach. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
Nigel McKay and Debra McKay considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS 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 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).
This standard is reflected in clause 19.15.3 of the CMA, that the accommodation must include efficient drainage for the removal of stormwater surface water and groundwater with any enclosed sub 4th space below a suspended floor having a ground moisture barrier and be compliant with the moisture ingress in drainage standards and part sub part six of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Home Standards) Regulations 2019.
The tenants provided pictures from an inspection showing downpipes not attached and they were not attached at the final inspection.
I find Maungakiekie Limited Kim Belfield committed an unlawful act.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I have found that the landlords have committed three breaches of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 and find that the landlord was aware of these. They are embarking on repairs to fix these issues now but they were not remedied during the tenancy. It is important that tenants have dry healthy homes to live in and that the landlords comply with the HHS. The breaches were not at the higher end and I find it just to award exemplary damages of $900.00 for these breaches. Failure to maintain.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The District Court has confirmed that when there are multiple claims for a breach under a single section (section 45 here), then only one order of exemplary damages can be made. I will therefore address the claims for exemplary damages for breaches of section 45 below and make one award if the breaches are proven.
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the a) Carpet b) Curtain and blinds c) Kitchen door handle d) Bedroom walls and curtains /mould e) Pool gate f)Trees g) Cracked windows, h) Garage door spring Carpet
The landlords were told of issues with the carpet in one room when the tenant moved in. The landlord offered to rip it out and replace it. A measure and quote was completed and they said that the recarpeting of is could have been done at any time. They thought that this would be after calving but no further conversations were had about it with the tenants. The landlord agreed that the rest of the carpet was worn but usable and was to be replaced when the old heating system was removed.
I find that the tenants have not established that the landlord failed to maintain the carpet. Steps were taken and the landlord was waiting upon the tenants. Curtain and blinds
The roller blind in bedroom 2 was noted as ‘needs replacing’ in the 21 November inspection. They never were. No curtains were provided for the ‘Little room ‘.I find that this is a breach of section 45. Kitchen door handle
It was not disputed that the kitchen door handle was a problem having been replaced and it broke again. It was noted in the 21 November 2024, inspection ‘door swells and needs a new door handle”. I find that the landlord failed to maintain this and it is breach of section 45. Mould
The tenant claimed that there was mould on the walls of the bedrooms. Pictures of this were provided. A discussion was held between the parties about the use of exit mould to fix the issue and the tenant agreed that most of it came off with this treatment.
Mould is a problem in this area Mould is fungal growth that requires moisture, oxygen, warmth and darkness to grow. Mould will grow where humidity is high.
To prevent mould, surfaces must be cleaned and excess moisture and humidity reduced. Landlords ideally need to provide premises with heating, extractor fans, and safety stays on windows so premises can be safely aired. Tenants are required to heat and air the premises.
I do not find that there was enough evidence provided establishing that it was the landlords lack of maintenance that caused this problem. This claim is dismissed. Pool gate
The pool was not in use but was full of water and debris. The tenant said that the door did not spring closed after opening or locked. The landlord said it was locked with a pad lock and they we not aware that this had been removed. This claim is dismissed. Trees
The landlord agreed that they knew there were issues with the trees, but after there were problems between the parties were reluctant to come onto the section or have anyone else attend to them as they may have aggravated the situation.
Photographs were provided of trees near the house that required maintaining. I find that this is a breach of section 45. Cracked windows,
There were few windows with small cracks that were part of the builder’s quote and the landlord was progressing with this. There was evidence provided that the delay was due to the builder’s unavailability. Garage door spring.
The landlord provided a copy of a builder’s report that quoted repairs including replacement of windows, spouting, and garage spring. The report said the work was approved in late February 2024.The inspection on 21 November noted that the garage spring was missing. I find that this is a breach of section 45.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have found that the landlord has breached this section four times. I have considered the evidence presented but may not have made specific reference to all of it. The landlord knew that these areas required maintenance. It is important for the safety and wellbeing of tenants that premises are well maintained and I find it just to award exemplary damages of $1300.00 for these breaches. Quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
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.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
This claim relates to the landlord’s son who is a sharemilker on the farm behind the tenants and the parties use the same tanker track to access sheds.
The tenant said that he spread effluent on their section, and they called environment Waikato who investigated. No results from the investigation are available. The relationship between the parties was strained and the tenants were unhappy with his use of the tanker track that went past their property.
The landlords knew of the issues and said that their son was not happy being filmed by the tenants.
The tenants said because the landlords employed him that it was their breach. I disagree there are other sections that may have applied to this claim but I am not persuaded that the landlords have harassed the tenants via the actions of their Son.
This claim is dismissed. Insurance information
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises.
A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00. See section 45(2D) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Maungakiekie Limited Kim Belfield failed to provide the insurance information after the tenant requested it by email on 10 April 2025. I find Maungakiekie Limited Kim Belfield has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that 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.
It is clear that the landlords were requested to provide this information and the tenant said they only received it on the date of the hearing. Landlords are required to comply with the requirements of the RTA.I find it just to award $.200.00 for this breach. Termination without grounds
The Tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
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 $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants informed the landlords of concerns about the tenancy compliance with healthy homes standards on 15 May 2025 by email.
On the afternoon of 15 May 2025, the tenants were emailed a notice from the landlords’ solicitors stating that they had committed a material breach of the agreement which is not rectifiable and under clause 25.13.1 of the CMA terminated the agreement upon receipt of the notice.
The letter also terminated their service tenancy agreement based on section 53(2)(a) because the landlord believed on reasonable grounds that they would cause substantial damage to the premises. The tenants were told to vacate on 19 May 2025, being 3 days’ notice.
The tenants refused to vacate until the end of their CMA and no further action was taken by the landlords or their representatives.
The landlords said that they were busy on the farm and left it up to their lawyers to action and follow through.
The tenants had not been issued any 14 day notices for damage to the premises during the tenancy, denied causing damage to the milking plant and there is no end of tenancy claims for damage to the premises filed by the landlords in front of me.
The landlord said the notice was based on their belief that the tenant had damaged the cowshed and would damage the house.
The landlord said that they were concerned about the premises but failed to follow up on the early termination, take any further steps or apply to the Tribunal for termination and on the evidence provided, their assumptions have not played out.
I find based on the history of the tenancy, and the tenant’s behaviour as that is only what I have the jurisdiction to decide, that there were no grounds to end this tenancy by giving less than 14 days’ notice as claimed.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Establishing intention is sometimes not clear but considering the landlords failure to follow up the early termination, and lack of evidence supporting the proposed link between the claimed damage to the milking plant and damage to the premises, I find that the landlords knew they were not entitled terminate on this basis. It is important that landlords seek to terminate tenancies on the correct grounds due to the consequences for the tenants and it is in the public interest that they comply with all the requirements of the RTA. I find it just to award $800.00 for this breach.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5265140 — State of repair at 123 Matarawa Road, Kinleith, Tokoroa 3491

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5265140 — State of repair at 123 Matarawa Road, Kinleith, Tokoroa 3491

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions