What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273859 about?

The tribunal order states: terminating their fixed term tenancy effective 1 June

How much money was awarded in case 5273859?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273859?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273859?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12422944-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273859 about?

The tribunal order states: terminating their fixed term tenancy effective 1 June

How much money was awarded in case 5273859?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273859?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273859?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12422944-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5273859 — Tenancy dispute

Order

terminating their fixed term tenancy effective 1 June 2025. They say the Landlord has failed to address numerous issues during the tenancy, including: (a)Ongoing pest infestations

(b)Dirty and dusty carpet (c)Overgrown and unmaintained lawns, gardens and bushes (d)A broken garden gate, broken blinds and faulty bathroom heating light

The Tenants say that they and their baby have experienced persistent health issues, including skin rashes, allergic reactions and respiratory problems as a result of the alleged unsafe and unhealthy living environment. I understood the Tenants to allege that their various concerns are evidence that the Landlord has failed to adequately maintain the premises.
The Landlord agreed to release the Tenants from the fixed term tenancy on 23 June 2025, but denies the Tenants’ allegations. It wants to recover $2,250 unpaid rent and $50.67 in unpaid water rates: The issues
The issues I must determine in this case are: (a)Has the Landlord breached its responsibilities to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? (b)If not, what remedy are the Tenants entitled to? (c)What rent and water arrears are the Tenants liable for?

Has the Landlord breached its responsibilities?

The Landlord must: (a)provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; 1 and (b)maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 2
As the applicants, it is the Tenants who must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the Landlord has not met these responsibilities. Pest infestation
The Tenants moved into the premises in early November 2024. They first became concerned about the presence of ants.
The Tenants say that they advised the Landlord of an ant infestation in December 2024. The Tenants say the ants were throughout the house. The Landlords sent East and West Pest Control to the house three times to eradicate the ants – the first time in about December 2024. The Tenants say that this did not remedy the ant infestation, which they say continued throughout their tenancy. The Tenants 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(a). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(b). are worried that the ants may have caused or contributed to the rash that Ms [redacted] and their baby suffered from in March 2025.
As evidence of an alleged ongoing infestation, the Tenants provided photographs dated: (a)22 April 2025, showing approximately 16 ants on the dining room wall; (b)22 April 2025, showing approximately 12 ants on the kitchen bench and dining room wall; (c)28 April 2025, showing approximately 22 ants on the kitchen wall; and (d)23 April 2025, showing one ant on their baby’s changing table in one of the bedrooms.
The Landlord says that it has taken reasonable steps to remedy any ant problem, including by promptly engaging East and West Pest Control. The Landlord also says that, during a routine inspection in December 2024, it noticed that the kitchen benchtop was cluttered and that it may not have been thoroughly cleaned, which may have attracted ants.
The Tenants then became concerned about rats. In December 2024, Ms [redacted] says that her father-in-law advised her that he had seen a rat in the kitchen. About a week later, Ms [redacted] says that she saw a rat run underneath the sofa.
In April 2025, Ms [redacted] saw a rat crawl underneath her baby’s bed. The Tenants say they have heard other noises, which they believe may be caused by rats. The Tenants contacted the Landlord. Ms [redacted] says that the property manager advised her that rats were a common problem in New Zealand.
The Landlord says that it has properly responded to the Tenants concerns about rats. It says that it also engaged East and West Pest Control, which set rat traps. The Landlord also contacted the Council, to advise the Council of the report of rats at the premises. The Landlord says that the Council advised that other neighbours had reported similar rat issues, potentially due to the nearby location of a bush reserve.
The Tenants also say that they saw skinks in the house at least five times. The Landlord says that skinks are common in New Zealand and are a protected species, so it has taken no steps to eradicate the skinks.
The Tenants suspect that the rats, skinks and ants are coming from the unfinished basement beneath the house, which has a dirt floor.
I find that the Tenants have proven that there were ants, rats and skinks in the premises at times during their tenancy. However, I am not satisfied that the Tenants have proven that the presence of ants, rats and skinks means the Landlord has failed to adequately maintain the premises.
Ants are commons, and can enter a home, even a clean and tidy one. I am satisfied that the Landlord has acted consistent with its obligations each time it was notified of the Tenant’s concerns.
Further, often ant infestations are caused by food or food residue (e.g. crumbs) being left on surfaces. In that regard, I note that the Landlord’s evidence as to the condition of the kitchen bench in December 2024, and the Tenants’ photographs, which show that most of the ants are in or near the kitchen. I cannot therefore discount the possibility that the presence of ants was due, at least in part, to the Tenants’ actions, rather than any failing of the Landlord.
I am not satisfied that the Tenants have proven that the premises had any significant rat infestation. I accept that there were three rat sightings. That is certainly more than is ideal, and I can understand the Tenants’ concerns. However, the Landlord acted swiftly and responsibly by engaging East and West Pest Control.
Also, aside from those sightings, there is no other evidence of any rat infestation. For example, the Tenants saw no sign of rat droppings, there was no reported damage caused by rats, there were no rats nests found and no rats were caught in the traps laid by the Tenants or by East and West Pest Control.
I therefore find that the Landlord has not breached its obligations to the Tenants. The Landlord has responded promptly to the Tenants’ concerns and the evidence does not establish that rats were in the premises due to any failure by the Landlord to properly maintain them.
Finally, skinks are common in New Zealand, particularly in bush areas and surrounds. I am not satisfied that the presence of a small number of skinks means the Landlord has breached any of its obligations. Carpet condition
The Tenants say that the carpet had not been properly cleaned when they moved into the premises. They say that when they first vacuumed the carpet, Mr [redacted] found it very hard to breathe. Mr [redacted] suffers from hay fever. The Tenants believe that the dust from the carpet may have caused or contributed to that hay fever. There was no medical evidence to support the connection between the condition of the carpet and Mr [redacted] ’s hay fever.
The Tenants also say that Ms [redacted] and their baby both developed a rash in March 2025. I have seen photographs that show the rashes. The Tenants believe that the rashes were caused by the carpet. Mr [redacted] says that whenever she went to a relative’s house, her symptoms went away. Again, there was no medical evidence to support the connection between the condition of the carpet and Ms [redacted] and her baby’s rashes.
Ms [redacted] says that it got to the point that only her father-in-law could vacuum the carpet. The Tenants asked the Landlord to have the carpet cleaned professionally. The Landlord declined. The Landlord says that the carpet was vacuumed and cleaned at the start of the tenancy and it does not believe that it has any obligation to have the carpet professionally cleaned during the tenancy.
I find that the Tenants have not proven that the carpet was dirty or mouldy at the start of the tenancy or otherwise in a condition that breached any of the Landlord’s obligations. There was no clear evidence as to the condition of the carpet. The Tenants provided photographs, but those photographs simply show that the carpet is worn, consistent with its age. The Tenants also provided no medical evidence linking their hay fever or rashes to the condition of the carpet.
I therefore find that the Tenants have not proven that the Landlords failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness or failed to adequately maintain the premises due to the condition of the carpet. The overgrown gardens and plants
Under the tenancy agreement, the Landlord was responsible for maintaining the lawns, gardens and trees. The evidence shows that the Landlord did not adequately maintain the lawns, gardens, and trees. The front lawn was overgrown when the Tenants moved in. The Tenants also provided photographs that clearly show that garden beds were covered in weeds and that the path to the front door was partially blocked by overgrown palms. The photographs also show that pebbled parts of the back yard were overgrown with weeds. Although it is arguable that those pebbled areas are also part of the gardens, for the purposes of this decision, I proceed on the basis they are not. Instead, I have focussed on the condition of the lawns, garden beds and bushes.
The Landlord says that it first noticed the overgrown palms blocking the path in February 2025. The gardens were not weeded, and the palms were not trimmed until about 11 April 2025. The Tenants provided an email from that date which records that the gardens were weeded (and presumably the palms trimmed) on that day.
This evidence satisfies me that the Landlord has breached its obligation to maintain the premises because it did not properly maintain the gardens and plants, as it had agreed to do under the tenancy agreement. Bathroom heating light switch
The switch for the bathroom heating light on the wall malfunctioned in early April. The Tenants reported the issue immediately. The problem was fixed on 22 April.
The Tenants say that this is a significant breach of the Landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises. They say that the heating light was needed so as they could bathe their baby in comfort.
I agree that the Landlord was required to fix the switch within a reasonable time, which the Landlord did. I am not satisfied that this was an issue so serious that the Landlord was required to immediately repair. There is no suggestion that the issue with the switch was a safety concern. The bathroom also remained usable, as there was other lighting. I therefore find that the Tenants have not proven that the Landlord failed to adequately maintain the premises due to the issue with the bathroom heating light switch. The gate
There is a fence at the front of the premises. The gate in that fence, which can be opened from the inside and outside, worked until 22 April, when the gate latch malfunctioned. The Tenants immediately notified the Landlord. The Landlord sent a contractor to repair the gate. That initial repair was unsuccessful, and a more extensive repair was required. The gate was not properly repaired until 28 May.
The Tenants again say that this is a serious breach of the Landlord’s obligations and a security concern. The Landlord says there was no safety or security concern. It says that, even when the gate was properly latched, anyone who wanted to enter the premises could do so by opening the gate.
I agree. As with the bathroom heating light, this was an issue the Landlord was required to remedy within a reasonable time. It was not so urgent that it needed to be fixed immediately. I find that the Landlord did remedy the faulty gate within a reasonable time and has therefore complied with its obligation to maintain the premises. The blinds
The Tenants had problems with two blinds. First, a blind in the master bedroom was misaligned due to a faulty weight. The Tenants reported this to the Landlord on 16 April. Then, the cord on a blind in the baby’s room broke. The Tenants reported this on 24 April. The Landlords say that they took some time to find a repairer, and once they did, the blinds were fixed by 7 May.
As with the bathroom heating light and the gate, this was an issue the Landlord was required to remedy within a reasonable time. It was not so urgent that it needed to be fixed immediately, and I am satisfied that the Landlord has fixed the blinds within a reasonable time and has therefore complied with its obligation to maintain the premises.

What remedy are the Tenants entitled to?

For the

Reasons

set out above, the only breach of the Landlord’s obligations was its failure to adequately maintain the lawns, gardens and bushes. The Tenant has not proven any other failure by the Landlord to comply with its obligations.

The Tenants want an order for early termination of the tenancy. The one proven breach by the Landlord – the failure to maintain the lawns, gardens and bushes – is not nearly significant enough to warrant that outcome. In that regard, I note that the Tenants also submitted that the weeds may have contributed to their health issues, but no reliable evidence was provided in support of that claim.
Instead, I consider that the outcome that does justice to the parties in this case is an order reducing the rent by $52.50 per week (which is 5 per cent of the total rent) from the start of the tenancy until 11 April 2025, which is a period of 201 days (28 weeks and 5 days).
I think a rent reduction of $52.50 per week (or $7.50 per day) is a proportionate outcome. The Tenants paid $1,050 per week to rent the premises. That is a significant amount, and a component of that rent would have been the expected cost of maintaining the lawns, gardens and trees. The Tenants were therefore entitled to expect that the Landlord would comply with its obligation to properly maintain the lawns, gardens and bushes. The Tenants did not get that benefit despite paying for it and lived for many months with unmaintained gardens and bushes.
I therefore order that the Landlord is required to pay $1,507.50 ($7.50 per day x 201 days) to the Tenants for failing to maintain the gardens and plants between 23 September 2024 and 11 April 2025.

What rent and water arrears are the Tenants liable for?

The Tenants have not succeeded in their application to end the fixed term tenancy early. As a result, the Landlord is entitled to recover all rent and water arrears until the end of the tenancy. Rather fortunately for the Tenants, the Landlord agreed to end the fixed term tenancy on 23 June 2023, three months early, meaning the Tenants are only liable until that date.
The Tenants last paid rent on 1 June 2023 for the period up to and including 8 June 2025. The Landlord has provided a rent summary to show that the rent owing up to 23 June 2023 is $2,250. The Landlord is entitled to recover that amount.
I make no order for water rates. The Landlord had sought to recover $50.67 but advised during the hearing there had been a calculation error, and the actual amount was much less (approximately $5). Given the uncertainty as to the precise water rates owed (if any), I make no order. Filing fee and name suppression
Both parties have been substantially successful in their claims and/or defence of the other’s claim. I therefore order suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties. Given the shared success, I make no order for the reimbursement of the filing fees. Bond
I direct that the Bond Centre is to pay the bond to the parties as ordered above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273859 — Tenancy dispute

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273859 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Has the Landlord breached its responsibilities?

What remedy are the Tenants entitled to?

Reasons

What rent and water arrears are the Tenants liable for?

Order

Has the Landlord breached its responsibilities?

What remedy are the Tenants entitled to?

Reasons

What rent and water arrears are the Tenants liable for?