What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277499 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5277499?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277499?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277499?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12544172-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277499 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5277499?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277499?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277499?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12544172-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5277499 — Leaks

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
By consent the landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 10 November 2025. a. Investigate and repair bathroom tiling.
The tenants shall give reasonable access to the landlords on a weekday following receipt of notice in accordance with section 48 RTA for the work to be completed.
By consent the tenant shall arrange for an electrician to investigate and repair any electrical fault regarding the light bulbs and the landlord agrees to reimburse the reasonable cost of the electrician.
The claim for compensation for stove top repair is withdrawn at the landlord’s request.
The remainder of the tenant claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference on 10 September 2025.
This tenancy began in January 2025. The tenants rented an apartment in an historic apartment complex near the city.
In June 2025 the tenants filed an application in the Tribunal and claimed that they disputed a charge the landlord was seeking for repair of a cooktop and instead claimed that the cooktop was substandard, they sought compensation of $1000.00 and/or exemplary damages for failure to maintain lightbulbs in the premises and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 12 June 2025 the landlords cross applied for reimbursement of $131.05 for repair of the damaged cooktop and claimed the tenants failed to provide reasonable access to the landlord to undertake repairs at the premises.
On 31 August 2025 the tenants sought to amend their claim and the amended claims were confirmed by the tenants on 10 September 2025 as follows: (a)A claim that the landlord failed to repair the wooden flooring and bathroom tiles. (b)A claim that the mattresses were unusable. (c)A claim for reimbursement of internet costs (d)A claim that the landlord unlawfully entered the premises (e)A claim that the landlord unlawfully claimed that they had given notice to end the tenancy (f)A claim that the heating does not meet Healthy Homes requirements. (g)A claim of harassment by the landlord due to repeated emails sent.
The Tribunal heard extensive evidence of both parties on 10 September and at the end of the hearing there was some further evidence to be filed.
The Tribunal directed the following: “The decision is reserved.
The landlord is to provide a copy of the Healthy Homes Report by 5pm Wednesday 17 September 2025.
The tenants are to provide further evidence in respect of the modem by 5pm Wednesday 17 September 2025.
The evidence can be emailed to the Tenancy Tribunal via aucklandmetrotenancy@justice.govt.nz
Either party may file evidence strictly in reply to the new evidence filed by 5pm Friday 19 September 2025.
The parties are to put reference to the application numbers 5277499 and 5285343 4300403 in the subject and the body of the emails.”
Both parties filed further evidence.
At the hearing, and subsequently, claims were raised that were not included in the claim and amended claim. These claims will not be considered in this decision. Burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. In the case of damage and maintenance claims reports, invoices, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated:“...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all of the evidence in this decision, however, the parties can be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence filed. Landlord Claim
The cooktop light was damaged as a result of water ingress. There was disputed evidence from the parties regarding whether this damage occurred as a result of fair wear and tear or carelessness.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 at section 49A states that the general principle in relation to damage is that except as provided by section 49B a tenant has no liability or obligation to meet the cost or pay damages for making good any damage to the premises and in any case a tenant is not liable for fair wear and tear.
At the end of the hearing on 10 September 2025 the landlord advised that the claim for $131.05 for repair of the stove cooktop was withdrawn. Therefore, I do not need to make a determination regarding this matter. Tenant Claims

Has the landlord failed to comply with their maintenance obligations?

[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 and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the following:
Cook top (a)The tenants claimed that the cooktop was old as it was a 2018 model and not correctly installed as it was not the correct distance from the sink. They seek replacement of the cooktop. They provided evidence by way of a quote from the building regulations and photographs of the cooktop. (b)The landlord claimed that the Vogue 320400 cooktop was replaced new in September 2024. The landlord claimed that the cook top was installed by an electrician and was compliant with regulations. The landlord provided a copy of the invoice from Easy Appliance Servicing dated 4 September 2024 for the cook top installation and a copy of a Supplier Declaration of Conformity from Trade Depot dated 2023 stating the Vogue model was compliant. (c)I find that the tenants have failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the cooktop was old and not correctly installed for the following reasons: (i)The cook top was installed new in September 2024 by Easy Appliance Servicing and the supplier declaration records that it is a compliant model. (ii)The section of the building code referred to by the tenants relates to gas installation and this is an electrical cook top. (iii)The tenants have not provided any evidence by way of a second opinion from an electrician as evidence that the cooktop or its installation is not compliant. (iv)The damage to the light has been repaired and no evidence of any further difficulties with the cooktop was provided.
Light bulbs (a)The tenants claim that there have been ongoing difficulties with lightbulb failure and seek that the landlord arrange for the wiring to be checked. The tenants provided photographs of lights currently not working in the hallway, room 1, bathroom and kitchen. (b)The parties agreed that the landlord sent a contractor to replace bulbs in January but there have been further problems. (c)The landlord agrees to arrange an electrician to investigate but stated that there have been difficulties with contractors gaining access to do work. (d)The parties agreed that the tenants will arrange an electrician of their choice to investigate the lightbulb failure and check the wiring and the landlord will pay any reasonable cost.
Wooden floorboards (a)The tenants claim that there are gaps in the flooring which have caused injury when barefoot. The tenants provided photographs of the flooring but no evidence of the injuries. (b)The landlord stated that the tenants reported the issue to them and they arranged a contractor to investigate. The contractor has provided a letter from Floor Restorations dated 5 June 2025 stating that the gaps are the nature of this flooring and that as the boards contract and expand with weather it is not possible to eliminate all gaps. (c)When considering the landlords obligations I must take in to account the age and character of the premises. (d)In this case the premises are older and have solid wood floorboards. (e)I accept the evidence of the tenants that there are some gaps in the floorboards. I also accept the evidence of the landlord that they investigated the issue when it was raised by the tenants and were advised that this is part of the character of this flooring. I therefore find that the tenants have failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlords have failed to maintain the flooring. (f)The landlords have agreed to supply the tenants with rugs for the wooden floor for their comfort.
Bathroom tile grouting (a)The tenants claimed that there is broken grout in the bathroom tiles and has notified the landlord. (b)The landlord advised that they have contacted a contractor who has provided a quote to investigate and rectify any grouting issues. The landlord has approved the quote and advised that the tenants were called twice to arrange a date and time but have declined the times suggested because they seek a Sunday visit. The landlord advised that to the date of the hearing they have not been able to arrange a contractor to attend on a Sunday. (c)The tenants advised that they are cautious about people entering the premises when they are not there as they have to work during the week. (d) A landlord may enter the premises for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs or maintenance upon giving 24 hours’ notice. See section 48(2)(d) of the RTA. Tenant consent is not recorded as a requirement of section 48(2)(d). In consideration of the tenants, landlords may choose to consult with tenants to find a suitable time for contractors to attend, however, tenants have a responsibility to allow landlords to comply with their maintenance obligations. (e)I find that the landlord is ready and willing to complete the maintenance work but there have been delays due to access to the premises. I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached their obligation. (e)The landlord consents to a work order for completion of this work and this is made accordingly.
Mattresses (a)The tenant seeks reimbursement of the cost of replacement mattresses on the basis that they were unusable as they were uncomfortable for the tenant’s back. (b)The premises were provided with beds and mattresses. The tenant advised that the mattresses were uncomfortable and have provided photographs of the mattresses. The tenants have replaced two mattresses and seek reimbursement of the cost. (c)The landlord stated that the mattresses were purchased in February 2023 and provided an invoice for the purchase. (d)I find that the tenants have failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to maintain the mattresses for the following reasons: (i)The premises were provided with mattresses. The mattresses were less than two years old at the commencement of the tenancy. (ii)The photographs of the mattresses provided do not show any apparent damage. (iii)The tenants contracted to rent the premises with the mattresses provided. The tenant is not required to use the mattresses provided and may choose to use mattresses of their choosing. The landlord is required to remedy if there are maintenance issues with the mattresses provided but is not required to provide alternative mattresses. Are the landlords liable to reimburse the tenants for the cost of internet usage and a modem?
The tenants claim that the landlord agreed to provide a modem when the premises were advertised and in later text communication and failed to provide a modem. They seek reimbursement of the cost of a modem and their internet usage costs. The tenants have provided a copy of the text communication and evidence of their internet costs including a modem costing $929.83.
Landlords are responsible for the cost of outgoings incurred whether or not the premises are occupied. See section 39 (1) RTA. In this case the landlord provided a fibre internet connection.
Section 39 (3) and (4) of the RTA state “(3)The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. (4)Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), the tenant is responsible for the following charges, incurred during the tenancy, in respect of the premises: (a)electricity and gas: (b)telephone and Internet: (c)supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.”
The landlord stated that there was never any agreement to provide a modem. The landlord stated that the advertisement did not state that a modem was provided. The landlord stated that the text message that refers to a modem was misinterpreted by the tenant as the landlord was stating that a modem was needed and the tenant interpreted this as a modem was provided. The landlord provided a copy of a letter to the tenants sent on 20 December 2025 prior to the tenancy commencing advising them to arrange internet and recommending doing this through Fast Connect.
The tenants did not provide a copy of the advertisement. I have carefully considered the text message and find that it is inconclusive. I am not satisfied that the tenants have proved that the landlords agreed to provide the premises with a modem and the cost of internet usage.
Having considered the evidence I find that there is insufficient evidence provided that the landlord agreed to provide a modem or pay for internet usage at the beginning of the tenancy. The written communication to the tenants dated 20 December 2024 informed them to arrange internet and this is consistent with section 39 (3) and (4) of the RTA.

Did the landlord unlawfully access the premises?

The tenants claimed that the landlord unlawfully entered the premises.
Landlords and their contractors acting on their behalf are entitled to enter the premises with the consent of the tenants or following 24 hours written notice being given for necessary repairs and maintenance to be carried out. See section 48 RTA.
The tenants provided copies of communication between the parties indicating ongoing communication issues regarding suitable times for contractors to enter the premises to undertake maintenance. There was insufficient evidence provided of an unlawful entry, therefore, I find that the tenants have not proved this claim on the balance of probabilities.

Did the landlord unlawfully claim that the tenants gave notice?

There was ongoing communication between the parties provided to the Tribunal. The landlord informed the tenant that if they were unhappy with the premises, they would accept notice and agree to end the fixed term tenancy. The tenants did not wish to do this and advised that the landlord unlawfully claimed that they gave notice. This matter did not proceed further and the tenancy is ongoing.
Landlords may not unlawfully terminate a tenancy but in this case the tenant is claiming that the landlord unlawfully claimed the tenant gave notice. There is no provision in the RTA regarding this claim.

Did the landlord breach Healthy Homes Standards in respect of heating?

The tenant 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). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level.
Regulation 11 of the Healthy Homes Standards provides that an exemption is provided if it is not reasonably practicable to install a qualifying heater in the main living room; or
The tenant claims that the heater does not meet Healthy Homes Standards as it is not a heatpump and does not meet the required heating output. The tenants have provided photographs of the heater and the Healthy Homes standards.
The landlord does not dispute that the heater does not meet the heating requirement but claims that the heater in this apartment is exempt and has provided a copy of the Healthy Homes Report dated 24 December 2024 which states “It is not reasonably practicable to install a qualifying heating source on this property”.
The tenant disputes this report but has not provided any evidence from a contractor in support.
The onus is on the tenant to prove this claim. On the face of it this heater in the apartment is exempt as recorded in the Healthy Homes report. I find that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities.

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

The tenants claimed that the landlord harassed them by sending repeated emails.
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.
The tenants stated that the landlord sent repeated reminder emails regarding the disputed cooktop invoice seeking payment and that this caused them stress.
The landlord responded that these were automatically generated reminders which were stopped when the tenant advised they were causing stress.
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.
Having considered the evidence I find that although the emails may have caused stress to the tenants they were in the context of a genuine claim for payment by the landlord in respect of the cooktop and the landlord ceased the reminders when advised they were causing stress to the tenant and the amount was in dispute. I find that there is insufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities that this amounts to a pattern of harassing behaviour directed towards the tenants and therefore this claim is dismissed. Suppression/filing fee
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal considers that the interests of the parties outweighs the public interest in their identities and orders suppression of all party identifying details.
As neither party has had substantial success with their application I make no order for reimbursement of either filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277499 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277499 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their maintenance obligations?

Did the landlord unlawfully access the premises?

Did the landlord unlawfully claim that the tenants gave notice?

Did the landlord breach Healthy Homes Standards in respect of heating?

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their maintenance obligations?

Did the landlord unlawfully access the premises?

Did the landlord unlawfully claim that the tenants gave notice?

Did the landlord breach Healthy Homes Standards in respect of heating?

Did the landlord harass the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions