What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268339 about?

The tribunal order states: Guava Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5268339?

Compensation: 3rd week of water issu…: $680.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Ist week of the tenanc…: $340.00 awarded to tenant; Extra Plumbing Charge Incl GST: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $276.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268339?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12793136-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268339 about?

The tribunal order states: Guava Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5268339?

Compensation: 3rd week of water issu…: $680.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Ist week of the tenanc…: $340.00 awarded to tenant; Extra Plumbing Charge Incl GST: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $276.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268339?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12793136-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Kiwi Crescent, Tawa, Wellington 5028 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5268339 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

19 Kiwi Crescent, Tawa, Wellington 5028 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5268339 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5268339 — net $668.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 April 2025	$276.88		Rent arrears to 10 April 2025
Extra plumbing charge incl GST	$74.75		caused a loss for the landlord by her conduct. I have ordered the tenant to pay $74.75.
Compensation: Ist week of the tenancy issues		$340.00	Ist week of the tenancy issues
Compensation: 3rd week of water issues		$680.00	3rd week of water issues
Total award	$351.63	$1,020.00
Net award		$668.37
Bond		$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$668.37

Claims and awards for application 5268339 — net $668.37 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 10 April 2025

Amount: $276.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 10 April 2025

Extra plumbing charge incl GST

Amount: $74.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: caused a loss for the landlord by her conduct. I have ordered the tenant to pay $74.75.

Compensation: Ist week of the tenancy issues

Amount: $340.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Ist week of the tenancy issues

Compensation: 3rd week of water issues

Amount: $680.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 3rd week of water issues

Total award

Landlord $351.63 · Tenant $1,020.00

Net award

Tenant $668.37

Dismissed claims

Moving Cost — is that the tenant did not provide evidence that there was a cost related to her move. Where parties make applications for compensation for losses, they must p…
Moving Costs — B. The landlord’s application Rent arrears
These Items — Did the tenant cause a loss by delaying the plumber?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Rent arrears

Order

Guava Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $668.37 immediately.
The amount to pay is calculated as follows.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (BN-00005238) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

A. The tenant’s application

The tenant has claimed $10,000.00 compensation for several issues during the tenancy. The issues to be considered are: a. Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and a reasonable state of repair? b. Did the landlord rectified the failures listed by the tenant on 27 November 2024? c. Did the landlord fail to maintain the hot water system at the premises? d. Did the landlord fail to meet Healthy Homes Standards at the premises? e. Was the tenant’s quiet enjoyment breached by contractors at the property? f. Did the landlord end the fixed term tenancy?
The tenant has claimed exemplary damages for: “Numerous friends of the landlord coming through the house multiple times over the 3 months and nothing actually getting fixed.” Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and a reasonable state of repair?
Section 45(1)(a & b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to provide premises in a reasonable clean and tidy condition and a reasonable state of repair. The landlord shall— (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises
The tenant claims that the premises was not reasonably clean and not in a reasonable state of repair when her tenancy began on 27 November 2024.
When the tenancy began the landlord requested the tenant to advise of any matters that needed addressing at the property. On the day the tenancy commenced the tenant sent the landlord a list of issues that needed to be addressed. The tenant’s list below includes both cleaning and remedial work necessary. ‘Windows don't close - kitchen, lounge Kitchen room is packed full of old tenants items Kitchen pantry not cleaned Heater?? Turned on in bathroom cupboard - fire risk Extractor fan Bathroom not cleaned Toilet not cleaned Smoke alarms Things shoved into fireplace Windowsills not clean Cobwebs and dead flies all over lounge windows/sills Exposed wiring in spare room Window doesn't open - spare room Boxes and items stuffed into cupboards - spare room Windowsills dirty and junk left - master bedroom Lawns overgrown Rubbish left outside x3 places and around’
The tenant provided photos for the Tribunal that show some of the items in the list. At the case conference I suggested that the landlord provided photos for the resumed hearing to show the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord did not provide photos of the property.
I am satisfied that the property was not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy and some maintenance work was needed. It is not acceptable for a landlord to give possession of a property to a tenant and request the tenant to assess what work needs doing. It is the landlord’s responsibility to assess the state of the premises before the tenancy begins. The tenant should not have to put up with contracts fixing easily observable issues in the first week of a tenancy. I am satisfied that the landlord has breached ss.45(1)(a&b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (hereafter RTA).
I have allowed compensation equivalent to half the first week’s rent for this breach.

Did the landlord rectified the failures listed by the tenant on 27 November 2024?

The tenant claims that the issues she listed on 27 November were not rectified. However during the hearing the tenant did state that the property manager’s friends were at the property for about 2 days in the first week of her tenancy. This lends support to the landlord’s submission that contractors were sent to the property to rectify matters in the tenant’s list. The landlord disputed the tenant’s claim that the people sent to do repairs were friends and not contractors.
There is one item on the list which does not appear to have been remedied until well after the tenancy began. That is the extractor fan in the bathroom. There is a text message from the landlord dated 31 March 2025 stating: “Also the electrician have (sic) been given the ok to put in the exhaust in the bathroom. He will directly contact you”.
The tenant has not assisted her claim with evidence such as texts or emails to the landlord after the first week expressing concern that remedial work had not been carried out. The landlord stated that the first occasion that the tenant has advised that issues on the list were not remedied was when she lodged her application to the Tribunal on 20 May 2025. The tenant could not disprove that.
There is a process which parties should follow when they believe there has been a breach of the other party’s obligations. The process is to send a 14 day notice setting out the breach. If the party that has breached fails to remedy the breach the other party may lodge an application in the Tribunal.
In the present case the tenant sent a notice to the landlord on 27 November 2024. The tenant did not apply to the Tribunal regarding a landlord breach at that time. This silence does not assist the tenant with her claim that all items on the list were not rectified. It favours the landlord’s submission that the silence is because things needing to be fixed were fixed.
Except for the extractor fan in the bathroom, there is insufficient evidence to prove the landlord failed to remedy matters raised by the tenant in her email dated 27 November 2024. I shall refer to the extractor fan below when considering Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).

Did the landlord fail to maintain the hot water system at the premises?

Shortly after the tenancy began the tenant requested the landlord to remedy a problem with the shower at the premises. A shower pressure problem was not on the 27 November list however was discovered shortly after that. The tenant’s claim is that the hot water temperature fluctuation and the low water pressure in the shower were never fixed.
The evidence that is available shows that the landlord did respond to the tenant’s concern about the shower pressure within a reasonable time after the tenant notified the landlord about this problem. The landlord contracted Belmont Plumbing Limited on 3 December and work was completed on 5 and 6 December. The cost of the remedial work was $1,766.67.
Although the tenant stated that the problem was not fixed and she suffered from a fluctuating hot water temperature and shower problems throughout her tenancy, there is insufficient evidence to show that to be the case. Both the landlord and the plumber’s evidence show that after the 6 December 2024 shower work at the premises, the next time that the tenant complained of hot water issues at the property was in mid-March 2025. The plumber attended on 17 March to change a pressure valve. That fix was unsatisfactory. The plumber returned to address the problem again. The plumber stated that during the work in March he suggested to the landlord several times that the low-pressure hot water cylinder be changed to a high-pressure hot water system. The low- pressure system had serviced the property for about 74 years. The cylinder was changed and the system modified, by work carried out on 28 – 31 March at a cost of $5,474.68.
It was during this time that the landlord offered the tenant three weeks free rent to compensate for the inconvenience due to the hot water. The landlord reduced this to two weeks after the tenancy ended because the landlord understood from a neighbour that the tenant was not staying at the property when the hot water was a problem in March.
I am satisfied that compensation of three weeks was given and should remain in place. The tenant stated that she was living there but also having to stay elsewhere when there were water issues at the property. There was also an issue with water from the dishwasher and also water flooding the floor from the dishwasher waste pipe. The three weeks originally offered by the landlord is appropriate for the water problem the tenant experienced at the property.
The Tribunal has ordered the additional week of compensation that the landlord promised.

Did the landlord failed to meet Healthy Homes Standards at the premises?

The tenant claims that the premises did not meet HHS. She claimed that the property was mouldy and affected her health.
It is the tenant’s burden to prove that the landlord breached HHS. The tenant did not provide evidence from a registered inspector who had attended the property and made a report. The document she provided was not the result of an on-site assessment by a registered inspector.
The tenant provided a doctor’s letter stating that her respiratory health had deteriorated. There are many reasons for respiratory health problems. The mould levels in houses can be a cause however because there are many other causes, a tenant must show that there are dangerous levels of mould spores in the premises. There are companies who carry out testing and reports their findings. The tenant did not provide this evidence.
Due to insufficient evidence, the Tribunal is unable to safely conclude that the premises was a cause of the tenant’s respiratory issues.
The landlord provided a HHS report dated 2021. However is quite possible with an older house, such as this premises, that the property may have been complaint in 2021 but not been compliant in December 2024.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and Regulations set out the requirements for landlords regarding HHS. HHS requirements for private landlords changed on 26 November 2022. The timeframe for compliance for a new or renewed tenancy before 1 July 2025 increased from 90 days to 120 days.
The tenant’s tenancy started before 1 July 2025. That means that the landlord was required to meet HHS by 27 March 2025 regarding draughts, ventilation etc. It is most likely that by 27 March an extractor fan had not been installed in the bathroom. However it was installed shortly after 27 March. There is insufficient reason for the Tribunal to order compensation regarding the extractor fan. The tenancy ended shortly after the compliance date.
Exemplary damages can only be ordered by the Tribunal where a party has applied for exemplary damages for a specific breach. The tenant did not apply for exemplary damages regarding HHS. Was the tenant’s quiet enjoyment breached by the presence of contractors at the property? Should exemplary damages be ordered?
The tenant has claimed a breach of her quiet enjoyment due to tradesmen carrying out work at the property. She did not provided a schedule setting out the visits made, time the tradesmen were at the premises and the reason for their visits. This information was suggested in the order following the first case conference hearing.
Tenants must expect that from time to time there will be maintenance necessary at a property, especially in older properties. There will be disruption while maintenance is carried out. The landlord offered a rent holiday for three weeks during the March water remedial and hot water replacement period. The tenant cannot expect more than free rent during that period.
The tenant claimed the cost of motel accommodation. The tenant did not provide receipts as proof that she had stayed in motels.
The landlord provided evidence that the tenant’s attitude and conduct towards contractors caused delays. The plumber from Belmont Plumbing wrote to the landlord as follows. “I have never experienced in all the years of working anything like your tenant has behaved at Kiwi Street-----The big issue is her personal comments amongst the tirade of words given during her demonstrative violent behaviour. I have been to Hawkins Plumbing and discussed works there----my concern was that the face plate had not been removed from the shower for inspection as there judgment was that the shower had been connected back to front [ by not doing this], further giving her an excuse for another abusive assault upon myself -- We resolved that amicably with Hawkins. Your Tenant ordered my assistant who was there to help with menial tasks off the f--- site And f-- move the shit out any normal person would have gone home but he remained in his vehicle out of site on the street concerned for my safety.”
I have no doubt that this is an accurate record of the tenant’s behaviour. Her lack of self-control was also evident during the substantive hearing.
The tenant also delayed contractors because she believed the landlord required her consent to enter the premises to carry out repairs. She texted the landlord stating, ‘I don’t give permission to disturb my peace at 11:30 especially when I have an arranged meeting ... tomorrow. You still have to arrange a time that is convenient with me. Not just 24 hours notice and come whenever YOU choose. So tell me what time from 4pm...’
The tenant is incorrect. Section 48(d) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the landlord may enter the premises for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry at least 24 hours before the intended entry. The landlord does not require that a tenant gives consent.
The tenant has claimed exemplary damages on the grounds that “Numerous friends of the landlord coming through the house multiple times over the 3 months and nothing actually getting fixed.”
The tenant has chosen to call contractors, ‘friends of the landlord’. I am satisfied from invoices supplied in evidence, that work was carried out by contractors.
Exemplary damages may be ordered where a party carries out an unlawful act. Schedule 1A RTA lists unlawful acts. The schedule does not include a landlord sending contractors to carry out remedial work at a property. It is an unlawful act for a landlord to harass a tenant. The tenant would need to prove that the contractors were sent by the landlord with an intention to harass her. The evidence is that contractors were only sent to the premises when maintenance was needed. The evidence suggests that the tenant came closer to harassing the contractors than the reverse.
The tenant’s suggestion that contractors were present with “nothing actually getting fixed” is not supported by the facts. Repairs may have taken longer than the tenant wanted but that is different from repairs not being successful.

Did the landlord end the tenancy?

The tenant has claimed compensation on the grounds that the landlord ended her tenancy. The tenancy was for a fixed term until 27 November 2025.
The best evidence about which party initiated the end of the tenancy is the letter from the landlord to the tenant dated 28 March 2025. It commences: ‘We refer to your discussion with our property Manager Vijay Narayan in regards to your intention to end the tenancy at the above address due to the reason that some repairs are required at the house and that the house Is not suitable for your family. We are happy to inform you that the repair work has been started (hot water tank is being replaced with a new one) and also we understand that some work has to be carried out at the property. In view of the above we approve that you can end the tenancy at anytime within the ninety (90) days notice.’
The letter’s reference to the tenant not wanting to remain at the property is consistent with her texts to the landlord stating that the house is unliveable and dangerous to her children’s health. The tenant wrote, ‘I no longer want to be in this house the property manager has stated I can have 3 weeks rent off due to not having water for 2.7 weeks and no shower for 3 weeks. Me and my children haven't been able to stay at the property for over 3 weeks now as the facilities are unusable. I am willing to leave Thursday 10th of April only if he pulls through with his promise’.
The evidence does not support the tenant’s claim that the landlord ended the tenancy or gave her notice. The landlord granted the tenant’s request to end the tenancy.
The tenant has claimed moving costs. The claim is dismissed for two reasons. The first is that the tenant chose to leave the property. The tenant could have stayed at the property and lodged a claim in the Tribunal if she believed work was necessary to make the property habitable. There is insufficient evidence that the property was uninhabitable when the tenant chose to leave.
The second reason why the tenant’s claim for moving cost is dismissed is that the tenant did not provide evidence that there was a cost related to her move. Where parties make applications for compensation for losses, they must provide evidence, such as invoices for amounts charged to them for work. In the Tribunal order after the case conference the tenant was advised as follows; ‘The tenant will need to provide an invoice from the removal company in support of her claim for moving costs’. No invoices from carriers are on record.
The claim for moving costs is dismissed. B. The landlord’s application Rent arrears
The landlord has claimed rent arrears. The landlord provided a rent record showing that at the end of the tenancy on 10 April 2025 the tenant owed $276.88. Cleaning, rubbish removal and lawn mowing
The landlord has claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided some photos showing some windowsills that could be vacuumed. The landlord provided photos of two mattresses and another item in the bushes. The landlord claimed for lawn mowing.
The property manager supplied an invoice created by the property management company, addressed to the tenant. The landlord did not supply any invoices from contractors for remedial work. As stated above, where parties make applications for compensation for losses, they must provide evidence, such as invoices for amounts charged to them for work.
If the property management company carried out remedial work at the property the invoice would be addressed to the landlord, not the tenant. The agent of the landlord cannot make a claim against a tenant for the agent’s time. The agent’s contract is with the landlord not the tenant. The agent would invoice the landlord and then claim for the landlord’s loss in the Tribunal.
There was no evidence presented by the property management company that the landlord had been charged for the agent’s work.
It could be said that the work necessary at the end of the tenancy would always cost the landlord. However it is also possible the a property management company might carry out the work at no charge to the landlord because of some responsibility for the loss of income from the terminated tenancy.
I also note that the amount claimed by the landlord for this work has increased. After the inspection the landlord claimed $590.00 for all these items. In the application to the Tribunal the claim has increased to $678.50.
For the landlord’s claim regarding cleaning and rubbish removal and lawn mowing to be successful the Tribunal required better evidence than the landlord provided. The claim for these items is dismissed.

Did the tenant cause a loss by delaying the plumber?

The landlord has claimed $442.75 from the tenant alleging that she caused additional time for plumbing work because of her conduct while that contractor was present at the property.
The plumber was phoned during the hearing to clarify several issues. The plumber was asked if there was additional time needed and charged for because of the tenant’s conduct while work was being carried out. The plumber stated that the tenant caused delay because a worker had to sit in a vehicle rather than be working in the premises. This is consistent with the plumber’s email to the landlord dated 31 March 2025. The plumber stated that the additional time was about one hour.
I am satisfied that the tenant caused a loss for the landlord by her conduct. I have ordered the tenant to pay $74.75. That is one hour of the assistant’s time plus Gst. Filing fee
Because both parties have been only partly successful with their claims, no order is made regarding payment of the filing fee to the other party. Name Suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has not substantially succeeded with the claim for $10,000.00 compensation and exemplary damages and therefore name suppression is not granted.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5268339 — net $668.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 April 2025	$276.88		Rent arrears to 10 April 2025
Extra plumbing charge incl GST	$74.75		caused a loss for the landlord by her conduct. I have ordered the tenant to pay $74.75.
Compensation: Ist week of the tenancy issues		$340.00	Ist week of the tenancy issues
Compensation: 3rd week of water issues		$680.00	3rd week of water issues
Total award	$351.63	$1,020.00
Net award		$668.37
Bond		$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$668.37

Claims and awards for application 5268339 — net $668.37 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 10 April 2025

Amount: $276.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 10 April 2025

Extra plumbing charge incl GST

Amount: $74.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: caused a loss for the landlord by her conduct. I have ordered the tenant to pay $74.75.

Compensation: Ist week of the tenancy issues

Amount: $340.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Ist week of the tenancy issues

Compensation: 3rd week of water issues

Amount: $680.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 3rd week of water issues

Total award

Landlord $351.63 · Tenant $1,020.00

Net award

Tenant $668.37

Dismissed claims

Moving Cost — is that the tenant did not provide evidence that there was a cost related to her move. Where parties make applications for compensation for losses, they must p…
Moving Costs — B. The landlord’s application Rent arrears
These Items — Did the tenant cause a loss by delaying the plumber?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Rent arrears

Order

Guava Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $668.37 immediately.
The amount to pay is calculated as follows.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (BN-00005238) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

A. The tenant’s application

The tenant has claimed $10,000.00 compensation for several issues during the tenancy. The issues to be considered are: a. Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and a reasonable state of repair? b. Did the landlord rectified the failures listed by the tenant on 27 November 2024? c. Did the landlord fail to maintain the hot water system at the premises? d. Did the landlord fail to meet Healthy Homes Standards at the premises? e. Was the tenant’s quiet enjoyment breached by contractors at the property? f. Did the landlord end the fixed term tenancy?
The tenant has claimed exemplary damages for: “Numerous friends of the landlord coming through the house multiple times over the 3 months and nothing actually getting fixed.” Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and a reasonable state of repair?
Section 45(1)(a & b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to provide premises in a reasonable clean and tidy condition and a reasonable state of repair. The landlord shall— (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises
The tenant claims that the premises was not reasonably clean and not in a reasonable state of repair when her tenancy began on 27 November 2024.
When the tenancy began the landlord requested the tenant to advise of any matters that needed addressing at the property. On the day the tenancy commenced the tenant sent the landlord a list of issues that needed to be addressed. The tenant’s list below includes both cleaning and remedial work necessary. ‘Windows don't close - kitchen, lounge Kitchen room is packed full of old tenants items Kitchen pantry not cleaned Heater?? Turned on in bathroom cupboard - fire risk Extractor fan Bathroom not cleaned Toilet not cleaned Smoke alarms Things shoved into fireplace Windowsills not clean Cobwebs and dead flies all over lounge windows/sills Exposed wiring in spare room Window doesn't open - spare room Boxes and items stuffed into cupboards - spare room Windowsills dirty and junk left - master bedroom Lawns overgrown Rubbish left outside x3 places and around’
The tenant provided photos for the Tribunal that show some of the items in the list. At the case conference I suggested that the landlord provided photos for the resumed hearing to show the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord did not provide photos of the property.
I am satisfied that the property was not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy and some maintenance work was needed. It is not acceptable for a landlord to give possession of a property to a tenant and request the tenant to assess what work needs doing. It is the landlord’s responsibility to assess the state of the premises before the tenancy begins. The tenant should not have to put up with contracts fixing easily observable issues in the first week of a tenancy. I am satisfied that the landlord has breached ss.45(1)(a&b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (hereafter RTA).
I have allowed compensation equivalent to half the first week’s rent for this breach.

Did the landlord rectified the failures listed by the tenant on 27 November 2024?

The tenant claims that the issues she listed on 27 November were not rectified. However during the hearing the tenant did state that the property manager’s friends were at the property for about 2 days in the first week of her tenancy. This lends support to the landlord’s submission that contractors were sent to the property to rectify matters in the tenant’s list. The landlord disputed the tenant’s claim that the people sent to do repairs were friends and not contractors.
There is one item on the list which does not appear to have been remedied until well after the tenancy began. That is the extractor fan in the bathroom. There is a text message from the landlord dated 31 March 2025 stating: “Also the electrician have (sic) been given the ok to put in the exhaust in the bathroom. He will directly contact you”.
The tenant has not assisted her claim with evidence such as texts or emails to the landlord after the first week expressing concern that remedial work had not been carried out. The landlord stated that the first occasion that the tenant has advised that issues on the list were not remedied was when she lodged her application to the Tribunal on 20 May 2025. The tenant could not disprove that.
There is a process which parties should follow when they believe there has been a breach of the other party’s obligations. The process is to send a 14 day notice setting out the breach. If the party that has breached fails to remedy the breach the other party may lodge an application in the Tribunal.
In the present case the tenant sent a notice to the landlord on 27 November 2024. The tenant did not apply to the Tribunal regarding a landlord breach at that time. This silence does not assist the tenant with her claim that all items on the list were not rectified. It favours the landlord’s submission that the silence is because things needing to be fixed were fixed.
Except for the extractor fan in the bathroom, there is insufficient evidence to prove the landlord failed to remedy matters raised by the tenant in her email dated 27 November 2024. I shall refer to the extractor fan below when considering Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).

Did the landlord fail to maintain the hot water system at the premises?

Shortly after the tenancy began the tenant requested the landlord to remedy a problem with the shower at the premises. A shower pressure problem was not on the 27 November list however was discovered shortly after that. The tenant’s claim is that the hot water temperature fluctuation and the low water pressure in the shower were never fixed.
The evidence that is available shows that the landlord did respond to the tenant’s concern about the shower pressure within a reasonable time after the tenant notified the landlord about this problem. The landlord contracted Belmont Plumbing Limited on 3 December and work was completed on 5 and 6 December. The cost of the remedial work was $1,766.67.
Although the tenant stated that the problem was not fixed and she suffered from a fluctuating hot water temperature and shower problems throughout her tenancy, there is insufficient evidence to show that to be the case. Both the landlord and the plumber’s evidence show that after the 6 December 2024 shower work at the premises, the next time that the tenant complained of hot water issues at the property was in mid-March 2025. The plumber attended on 17 March to change a pressure valve. That fix was unsatisfactory. The plumber returned to address the problem again. The plumber stated that during the work in March he suggested to the landlord several times that the low-pressure hot water cylinder be changed to a high-pressure hot water system. The low- pressure system had serviced the property for about 74 years. The cylinder was changed and the system modified, by work carried out on 28 – 31 March at a cost of $5,474.68.
It was during this time that the landlord offered the tenant three weeks free rent to compensate for the inconvenience due to the hot water. The landlord reduced this to two weeks after the tenancy ended because the landlord understood from a neighbour that the tenant was not staying at the property when the hot water was a problem in March.
I am satisfied that compensation of three weeks was given and should remain in place. The tenant stated that she was living there but also having to stay elsewhere when there were water issues at the property. There was also an issue with water from the dishwasher and also water flooding the floor from the dishwasher waste pipe. The three weeks originally offered by the landlord is appropriate for the water problem the tenant experienced at the property.
The Tribunal has ordered the additional week of compensation that the landlord promised.

Did the landlord failed to meet Healthy Homes Standards at the premises?

The tenant claims that the premises did not meet HHS. She claimed that the property was mouldy and affected her health.
It is the tenant’s burden to prove that the landlord breached HHS. The tenant did not provide evidence from a registered inspector who had attended the property and made a report. The document she provided was not the result of an on-site assessment by a registered inspector.
The tenant provided a doctor’s letter stating that her respiratory health had deteriorated. There are many reasons for respiratory health problems. The mould levels in houses can be a cause however because there are many other causes, a tenant must show that there are dangerous levels of mould spores in the premises. There are companies who carry out testing and reports their findings. The tenant did not provide this evidence.
Due to insufficient evidence, the Tribunal is unable to safely conclude that the premises was a cause of the tenant’s respiratory issues.
The landlord provided a HHS report dated 2021. However is quite possible with an older house, such as this premises, that the property may have been complaint in 2021 but not been compliant in December 2024.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and Regulations set out the requirements for landlords regarding HHS. HHS requirements for private landlords changed on 26 November 2022. The timeframe for compliance for a new or renewed tenancy before 1 July 2025 increased from 90 days to 120 days.
The tenant’s tenancy started before 1 July 2025. That means that the landlord was required to meet HHS by 27 March 2025 regarding draughts, ventilation etc. It is most likely that by 27 March an extractor fan had not been installed in the bathroom. However it was installed shortly after 27 March. There is insufficient reason for the Tribunal to order compensation regarding the extractor fan. The tenancy ended shortly after the compliance date.
Exemplary damages can only be ordered by the Tribunal where a party has applied for exemplary damages for a specific breach. The tenant did not apply for exemplary damages regarding HHS. Was the tenant’s quiet enjoyment breached by the presence of contractors at the property? Should exemplary damages be ordered?
The tenant has claimed a breach of her quiet enjoyment due to tradesmen carrying out work at the property. She did not provided a schedule setting out the visits made, time the tradesmen were at the premises and the reason for their visits. This information was suggested in the order following the first case conference hearing.
Tenants must expect that from time to time there will be maintenance necessary at a property, especially in older properties. There will be disruption while maintenance is carried out. The landlord offered a rent holiday for three weeks during the March water remedial and hot water replacement period. The tenant cannot expect more than free rent during that period.
The tenant claimed the cost of motel accommodation. The tenant did not provide receipts as proof that she had stayed in motels.
The landlord provided evidence that the tenant’s attitude and conduct towards contractors caused delays. The plumber from Belmont Plumbing wrote to the landlord as follows. “I have never experienced in all the years of working anything like your tenant has behaved at Kiwi Street-----The big issue is her personal comments amongst the tirade of words given during her demonstrative violent behaviour. I have been to Hawkins Plumbing and discussed works there----my concern was that the face plate had not been removed from the shower for inspection as there judgment was that the shower had been connected back to front [ by not doing this], further giving her an excuse for another abusive assault upon myself -- We resolved that amicably with Hawkins. Your Tenant ordered my assistant who was there to help with menial tasks off the f--- site And f-- move the shit out any normal person would have gone home but he remained in his vehicle out of site on the street concerned for my safety.”
I have no doubt that this is an accurate record of the tenant’s behaviour. Her lack of self-control was also evident during the substantive hearing.
The tenant also delayed contractors because she believed the landlord required her consent to enter the premises to carry out repairs. She texted the landlord stating, ‘I don’t give permission to disturb my peace at 11:30 especially when I have an arranged meeting ... tomorrow. You still have to arrange a time that is convenient with me. Not just 24 hours notice and come whenever YOU choose. So tell me what time from 4pm...’
The tenant is incorrect. Section 48(d) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the landlord may enter the premises for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry at least 24 hours before the intended entry. The landlord does not require that a tenant gives consent.
The tenant has claimed exemplary damages on the grounds that “Numerous friends of the landlord coming through the house multiple times over the 3 months and nothing actually getting fixed.”
The tenant has chosen to call contractors, ‘friends of the landlord’. I am satisfied from invoices supplied in evidence, that work was carried out by contractors.
Exemplary damages may be ordered where a party carries out an unlawful act. Schedule 1A RTA lists unlawful acts. The schedule does not include a landlord sending contractors to carry out remedial work at a property. It is an unlawful act for a landlord to harass a tenant. The tenant would need to prove that the contractors were sent by the landlord with an intention to harass her. The evidence is that contractors were only sent to the premises when maintenance was needed. The evidence suggests that the tenant came closer to harassing the contractors than the reverse.
The tenant’s suggestion that contractors were present with “nothing actually getting fixed” is not supported by the facts. Repairs may have taken longer than the tenant wanted but that is different from repairs not being successful.

Did the landlord end the tenancy?

The tenant has claimed compensation on the grounds that the landlord ended her tenancy. The tenancy was for a fixed term until 27 November 2025.
The best evidence about which party initiated the end of the tenancy is the letter from the landlord to the tenant dated 28 March 2025. It commences: ‘We refer to your discussion with our property Manager Vijay Narayan in regards to your intention to end the tenancy at the above address due to the reason that some repairs are required at the house and that the house Is not suitable for your family. We are happy to inform you that the repair work has been started (hot water tank is being replaced with a new one) and also we understand that some work has to be carried out at the property. In view of the above we approve that you can end the tenancy at anytime within the ninety (90) days notice.’
The letter’s reference to the tenant not wanting to remain at the property is consistent with her texts to the landlord stating that the house is unliveable and dangerous to her children’s health. The tenant wrote, ‘I no longer want to be in this house the property manager has stated I can have 3 weeks rent off due to not having water for 2.7 weeks and no shower for 3 weeks. Me and my children haven't been able to stay at the property for over 3 weeks now as the facilities are unusable. I am willing to leave Thursday 10th of April only if he pulls through with his promise’.
The evidence does not support the tenant’s claim that the landlord ended the tenancy or gave her notice. The landlord granted the tenant’s request to end the tenancy.
The tenant has claimed moving costs. The claim is dismissed for two reasons. The first is that the tenant chose to leave the property. The tenant could have stayed at the property and lodged a claim in the Tribunal if she believed work was necessary to make the property habitable. There is insufficient evidence that the property was uninhabitable when the tenant chose to leave.
The second reason why the tenant’s claim for moving cost is dismissed is that the tenant did not provide evidence that there was a cost related to her move. Where parties make applications for compensation for losses, they must provide evidence, such as invoices for amounts charged to them for work. In the Tribunal order after the case conference the tenant was advised as follows; ‘The tenant will need to provide an invoice from the removal company in support of her claim for moving costs’. No invoices from carriers are on record.
The claim for moving costs is dismissed. B. The landlord’s application Rent arrears
The landlord has claimed rent arrears. The landlord provided a rent record showing that at the end of the tenancy on 10 April 2025 the tenant owed $276.88. Cleaning, rubbish removal and lawn mowing
The landlord has claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided some photos showing some windowsills that could be vacuumed. The landlord provided photos of two mattresses and another item in the bushes. The landlord claimed for lawn mowing.
The property manager supplied an invoice created by the property management company, addressed to the tenant. The landlord did not supply any invoices from contractors for remedial work. As stated above, where parties make applications for compensation for losses, they must provide evidence, such as invoices for amounts charged to them for work.
If the property management company carried out remedial work at the property the invoice would be addressed to the landlord, not the tenant. The agent of the landlord cannot make a claim against a tenant for the agent’s time. The agent’s contract is with the landlord not the tenant. The agent would invoice the landlord and then claim for the landlord’s loss in the Tribunal.
There was no evidence presented by the property management company that the landlord had been charged for the agent’s work.
It could be said that the work necessary at the end of the tenancy would always cost the landlord. However it is also possible the a property management company might carry out the work at no charge to the landlord because of some responsibility for the loss of income from the terminated tenancy.
I also note that the amount claimed by the landlord for this work has increased. After the inspection the landlord claimed $590.00 for all these items. In the application to the Tribunal the claim has increased to $678.50.
For the landlord’s claim regarding cleaning and rubbish removal and lawn mowing to be successful the Tribunal required better evidence than the landlord provided. The claim for these items is dismissed.

Did the tenant cause a loss by delaying the plumber?

The landlord has claimed $442.75 from the tenant alleging that she caused additional time for plumbing work because of her conduct while that contractor was present at the property.
The plumber was phoned during the hearing to clarify several issues. The plumber was asked if there was additional time needed and charged for because of the tenant’s conduct while work was being carried out. The plumber stated that the tenant caused delay because a worker had to sit in a vehicle rather than be working in the premises. This is consistent with the plumber’s email to the landlord dated 31 March 2025. The plumber stated that the additional time was about one hour.
I am satisfied that the tenant caused a loss for the landlord by her conduct. I have ordered the tenant to pay $74.75. That is one hour of the assistant’s time plus Gst. Filing fee
Because both parties have been only partly successful with their claims, no order is made regarding payment of the filing fee to the other party. Name Suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has not substantially succeeded with the claim for $10,000.00 compensation and exemplary damages and therefore name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268339 — Rent arrears at 19 Kiwi Crescent, Tawa, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268339 — Rent arrears at 19 Kiwi Crescent, Tawa, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord rectified the failures listed by the tenant on 27 November 2024?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the hot water system at the premises?

Did the landlord failed to meet Healthy Homes Standards at the premises?

Did the landlord end the tenancy?

Did the tenant cause a loss by delaying the plumber?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord rectified the failures listed by the tenant on 27 November 2024?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the hot water system at the premises?

Did the landlord failed to meet Healthy Homes Standards at the premises?

Did the landlord end the tenancy?

Did the tenant cause a loss by delaying the plumber?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.