Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5281939 — Mould at Unit/Flat 35, 29 Beresford Street Central, Freemans Bay,

Published 2 June 2026 · Application 5281939

Landlord favoured

Mould
State of repair
Healthy homes
Exemplary damages
Harassment
Leaks

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Landlord favoured

From published order

Location

Auckland

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

J Northwood

Claims & awards

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

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The tenant claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This is the second day of a part heard matter that commenced on 22 January 2026 and completed on 23 April 2026.
The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986(RTA) and the tenancy agreement in the following ways: -Breached the landlord’s obligation to maintain the property and comply with healthy Homes standards. -Unlawfully discriminated against the tenant. -Breached the tenants right to quiet enjoyment. -The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
I will comment on s 48 RTA in this order. Background to these claims:
Ms Wyre took over the tenancy at 35/29 Beresford Street, Auckland CBD on 27 December 2024 and resides there with her young son.
There have been a number of issues with maintenance and repairs throughout the tenancy.
The tenant has made a number of claims in her application, and we heard evidence from Ms Wyre, and three Kainga Ora staff members at the hearings on 22 January 2026 and on 23 April 2026.
The tenancy is ongoing. Monica March Hiwaira 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, comply with Healthy Homes Standards, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
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.
In my last order dated 22 January 2026 I had set out the positions of the parties at that time, on each issue. After the second day on hearing on 23 April 2026 the following is a break down analysis of the tenants claims and landlord response.
The tenant claims that the property is uninhabitable, unsafe and needs to be rebuilt. She gave evidence of the ceiling having bad leaking problems, roof leaks, exterior needed painting, back door needed to be replaced, the toilet was unsanitary and leaked, hot water cylinder needed to be replaced, guttering needed to be cleaned, draught stopping, and pest control.
There has been attempts and repairs carried out on the issues raised by the tenant. Hot water cylinder:
The tenant accepts that she has not reported the hot water cylinder problems to the landlord because she did not want contractors coming into her house. The water heater had an expiry date on it, which sets out when it should be replaced. The water cylinder was years past its expiry date.
Since the last hearing, the hot water cylinder has been replaced. However, when the tradesperson removed the old cylinder, it was found that there was a number of old clothes and shoes behind the cylinder. The tenant says the old clothes were covered in rat droppings and mould.
Despite the tenant advising the tradesperson and the landlord of the old clothing and shoes being used to cushion the old cylinder, these items were left in place when the new cylinder was installed, rather than being removed. The landlord states that if the tenant seeks to have these items removed the hot water cylinder will need to be removed again and reinstalled. The parties will work together to determine the best outcome for this situation. Garage door lock:
The tenant claims the garage lock has not been repaired after the break-in. The landlord disputes that and says it has been fully repaired and if there were still issues the tenant has not advised them. The landlord provided work sheets and correspondence from the tradespeople who carried out the repairs, confirming the lock is now fully operational and repaired. The tenant will advise the landlord if further repairs are needed. Pest control:
The tenant says there are rat droppings found on the window ledge and hot water cylinder and in the ceiling. The landlord disputes the window ledge had evidence of droppings and says there are no existing issues/ nor evidence of pest control problems. It is accepted that previously there had been pest control issues and treatment was carried out to eradicate the pests from the property. The landlord provided job sheets and documents confirming the pest control measures taken. The landlord’s response to s45 claims.
The landlord states that they have acted reasonably and met their obligations as a landlord under s45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord states that the home is compliant with Healthy Homes Standards and has provided a recent Healthy Homes Report to confirm that.
The landlord provided evidence of all the work carried out on the property and the notices provided to the tenant for access to carry out the repairs and maintenance. The following is evidence of the work carried out:
9 May 2025 the tenant reported a water leak in the bedroom at 7.15pm. An after-hours tradesperson was sent out at 10.35pm but was refused access to the property by the tenant because the tradesperson would not remove his shoes and socks to come inside. The tradespeople agreed to wear covers over their work shoes while inside the property but that was rejected by the tenant.
15 May 2025 two visits were made by a builder, and a phone call, to assess the water leak in the ceiling. The tenant did not answer the door or call.
16 May 2025 the tenant confirmed she was available on 19 th May 2025 for builders to come to the property. Temporary repairs were made, and the area was seal off to protect the ceiling from further leaks.
4 June 2025 the tenant contacted the landlord to say multiple rooms were now affected by the roof leak. The landlord attempted to send contractors to the property, but they were refused entry because of wearing shoes inside the house. The Senior Housing Support Manager contacted the tenant to say that there are Health and Safety and workplace rules that must be adhered to, and the tradespeople would need to keep their shoes on when inside carrying out repairs. The tenant objected to this and filed a claim with the Human Rights Commissioner about her cultural and ethnic rights being violated.
16 June 2025 the tenant followed up on the roof repairs. A 14-day notice was issued to the tenant due to her failing to allow access to carry out the repairs. The tenant was advised by written notice that a builder would be accessing the property on 8 July 2025 to inspect the leak, water ingress and plumbing.
Final repairs to the roof, guttering and carpentry work were carried out on 4 August 2025.
At a mediation, (6 August 2025) the tenant was offered a transfer to a new property, which she declined.
Interior repairs were to be carried out and a plan was drawn up with the tenant to be completed on 20-22 August 2025.
On 26 August 2025, the landlord sent a notice to the tenant for access to allow tradespeople to complete remaining interior work such as the plumbing, painting, and hot water cylinder.
Additional work was required and a notice for access was sent for 17 and 18 September. All work required was completed on 18 September 2025. The tenant advised that she was seeking her own Healthy Homes Report on the property.
On 24 September 2025, the tenant sent a video and photo showing water leaking through a light fixture.
On 25 September 2025, an electrician attempted to communicate with the tenant to assess the leak. The work was completed on the outside of the property.
On 7, 10 th and 14 th October 2025 the parties meet to arrange further work to be carried out. Temporary accommodation was arranged for the tenant while the work was being carried out.
On 30 October 2025, the roof work was completed, and the interior painting finalised that day.
On 11 December 2025, the annual inspection was carried out on the property and the property was deemed to be in good condition.
The landlord maintains that they met their obligations as a landlord and while some repairs took longer than anticipated due to access issues, scheduling requirements, and the nature of the work, they acted reasonably throughout.
The landlord advises that the tenant refuses access to the property and expresses concerns about the contractors’ shoes in the house and ethnicity of some of the workers.
The landlord now sends Olivia Faalili, the Team Housing leader to attend when tradespeople need to be onsite to carry out work at the property. This is because of the numerous complaints the tenant has made about tradespeople and staff members that go to the property.
The landlord advised that after the tenant obtained her Healthy Homes statement, they had a new Healthy Homes report done. The landlord confirms the heat pump is working, there are no unintentional gaps, the gutters were cleaned, and the window repaired. Despite this the tenant claims not to be satisfied with the landlord’s report.
The tenant claimed there were “wires” coming out of the wall in the lounge and the bedroom. The tenant accepts that she has not advised the landlord of the situation with the “wires.” The landlord has given an undertaking to remove or repair the wiring/aerials in the property.
The tenant claims the windows did not close properly. The landlord says all windows have been checked and are compliant.
Mould complaints were related to the hot water cupboard which has now been replaced and there have been no further complaints of mould.
The tenant has made multiple complaints regarding the conduct of tradespeople and staff attending the premises for inspections, repairs, and maintenance.
The tenant has repeatedly refused or made access difficult for tradespeople and the landlord, despite being given proper notice for entry as required under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has provided evidence of numerous repairs and maintenance carried out, including detailed records and reports of work completed and attempts to arrange access for further work.
The evidence shows that the landlord has made genuine and repeated attempts to carry out repairs and maintenance and has complied with their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.
The tenant’s refusal to allow access has hindered the landlord’s ability to complete some repairs in a timely manner.
The Healthy Homes compliance report confirms that the property is now compliant with all relevant standards.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord has met their maintenance obligations and has acted reasonably in response to the tenant’s complaints.
The tenant claim that the landlord failed to maintain the property is dismissed. Unlawful entry s48 :
Monica March Hiwaira claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that on 11 July 2025 about 2.30pm the landlord, or contractors sent by the landlord, entered her property without her knowledge nor consent. The tenant was returning home after collecting her son from school and found contractors in her house. On other occasions the tenant says the contractors have left her door and gate open or unlocked.
The tenant said she became so concerned about strangers in her house she set traps, such as putting flour on the floor in the kitchen. If someone was in the house and walked through the kitchen there would be footprints in the flour.
On another occasion the tenant says the contractors were in her garden, close to her house and taking photos. She claimed the contractors were rude to her and made her feel disrespected and unsafe.
It is accepted that on one occasion the landlord did determine that a contractor had opened the back door on 15 July 2025 when he was expressly told not to do so. The contractor was subjected to “disciplinary actions” according to the landlord.
The tenant claims that one day she returned home to find scaffolding around her property without any prior knowledge. The landlord’s response:
The landlord stated that the tenant was aware of all occasions when contractors would need to access her house to do work. The Work Superior, George Tangi had at that time a good working relationship with the tenant and would inform her of the work being carried out and when contractors would be onsite.
The landlord confirmed that the contractors were allow onto the outside of the property for the purpose of maintenance. The contractors had been working on the exterior painting, constructing scaffolding, roof, and plumbing repairs.
The landlord advised that when the contractors were painting the exterior of the house, they needed to open the front and back doors to paint the door and window frames. Furthermore, on the occasion that the contractors were working on the back door they needed it open to carry out the work.
The landlord is adamant that the work supervisor told the tenant what was happening and when.
The Tribunal was provided with texts messages between the tenant and landlord arranging meetings for work to be done. Furthermore, written notices dated 24 October 2025 seeking to carry out work on 28-31 October 2025 and requiring access to the property, and 14 January 2026 for access on 19 th January 2026.
Despite the tenant having a contrary view, the landlord claims they do not have keys to the tenant’s house, garden, or garage. The landlord says that the tenant has put a padlock of the garden gate to stop the contractors coming onto the property to carry out work.
While I acknowledge there may have been an occasion where the tradespeople opened the door to carry out consented work to the property. However, this was addressed directly with the people concerned and measures put in place to ensure no further issues of that nature would occur.
I accept that the landlord was complying with their obligations as a landlord to maintain and repair the property. I do not accept that the landlord has breached the tenants’ rights by unlawful entering the property without her knowledge and consent and I dismiss this claim.
S48(7) RTA states that premises does not include the land or facilities, which means that a landlord does not need to provide notice to a tenant for entry onto the exterior of the property. A number of complaints relate to tradespeople putting up scaffolding, or a lock box outside the house and repairing stairs, without the tenants knowledge and consent. The landlord is legally entitled to carry out this work without the notice requirements.
The tenant is directed to allow reasonable access for the landlord and tradespeople for any future repairs, maintenance, or inspections, provided proper notice is given in accordance with section 48 of the RTA.
If the tenant continues to unreasonably refuse access, the landlord may apply for further orders or remedies under the RTA.
The Tribunal encourages cooperation to ensure the property remains in good condition and compliant with legal requirements. Monica March Hiwaira claims that the landlord discriminated against her and breached her quiet enjoyment:
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment:
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.
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) Residential Tenancies Act. The tenant claim:
The tenant says that the behaviour of the landlord has made her feel unsafe and unsecure in her house. There have been a number of complaints made by the tenant about the contractors. The tenant claimed that the landlord forged her signature on a document on 8 July 2025 and she subsequently filed a complaint with the Serious Fraud Office.
The tenant claims that the landlord threatens her with eviction if she did not comply with their demands and refers to emails claiming that if she does not allow access, she is breaching her tenancy agreement and there will be consequences for that.
The tenant claims the landlord put a lock box on her property without her knowledge for her key to be left out for people to access her home. The tenant says she was told if she refuses access the landlord can bring in a locksmith and gain access to her home. She feels unsafe and afraid as a result.
The tenant has made formal complaints to the New Zealand Police, Serious Fraud Office, Kainga Ora, and Human Rights Commission.
The complaints to various agencies relate to the alleged forgery of the tenant’s signature, the unlawful entry of contractors, damage to her property by contractors and the disregard for her cultural identity and human rights not to have shoes worn in the property by contractors.
The tenant claims that some workers have made racial remarks about her which she has found deeply upsetting and discriminatory.
The tenant implied that some of the contractors have made inappropriate comments to her and alleges one turned up at night to her home. The tenant claims she has no peace or privacy in the house.
The landlord response:
The landlord strongly denies that they or any contractors have been discriminatory toward the tenant. They claim that the tenant has expressed comments about the ethnicity of workers employed by the contracting company.
Furthermore, that staff are aware of the language barrier between themselves and the tenant and have used interpreting services to assist with interactions.
The landlord claims that all decisions and actions taken in relation to the tenancy, were based on operational requirements, maintenance needs and their obligation as a landlord. All decisions made are not influenced by the tenant’s race, ethnicity, or other personal characteristics.
The landlord wants the tenant to be happy and live well in the property.
The tenant filed a police complaint about forging her signature, theft of her property and harassment by a tradesperson, after investigation the file was closed without further action required.
The alleged forging of the tenant’s signature was discussed at the hearing. Evidence was given by two different workers that the tenant was present at the time of a meeting to discuss maintenance and repairs. Both witnesses categorially stated that the tenant signed the document that she claims was forged. The landlord has provided a copy of the signed document and the tenants tenancy agreement. Despite the tenant claiming the signatures were different, they looked very similar to me.
I find that the landlord has not unlawfully discriminated against the tenant. I accept that all decisions and actions taken in relation to the tenancy were based on operational requirements, maintenance needs and their obligations as a landlord. There has been no evidence provided that would support the claim that the landlords’ actions were motivated by race, ethnicity, or other personal characteristics. The necessity for tradespeople to wear shoes and work boots during working hours is not a cultural slight but a health and safety requirement under New Zealand legislation. The compromised position of a cover over the shoes, should have been more a satisfactory solution to the issue.
Nor do I find that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
I am dismissing the tenants claims and therefore I do not need to consider exemplary damages or compensation. Filing Fee/Suppression:
As the tenant has been unsuccessful with her claims, I am not reimbursing the filing fee.
The Tribunal acknowledges the tenant’s sincerely held concerns and recognises that cultural background and personal sensitivities may have influenced her experience of the tenancy. I accept that the tenant genuinely believes her claims are justified. However, after carefully considering all the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. While I appreciate the tenant’s perspective, I am unable to uphold her claims, and they are therefore dismissed.
Generally, if a party has been unsuccessful in the Tribunal suppression of their name and details is declined. The tenant has applied for suppression, and I am granting her suppression. The reasons for my decision are that the tenant genuinely believes her claims. I believe language and cultural differences have been partially responsible for the tenant’s distress and misunderstanding. I cannot see any public interest in this case being published.
The tenancy is ongoing, and the landlord has adopted strategies to assist with dealing with the tenant and complying with their obligations as a landlord.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Mould State of repair Healthy homes Exemplary damages Harassment Leaks Auckland

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s109(3), s12(1), s21, s38(2), s38(3), s45, s45(1A), s48, s48(1), s48(7)

Key findings

Dispute theme: state of repair
Dispute theme: healthy homes
Dispute theme: exemplary damages

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5281939?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5281939?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5281939?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5281939?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13509549-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This is the second day of a part heard matter that commenced on 22 January 2026 and completed on 23 April 2026.

The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986(RTA) and the tenancy agreement in the following ways: -Breached the landlord’s obligation to maintain the property and comply with healthy Homes standards. -Unlawfully discriminated against the tenant. -Breached the tenants right to quiet enjoyment. -The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.

I will comment on s 48 RTA in this order. Background to these claims:

Ms Wyre took over the tenancy at 35/29 Beresford Street, Auckland CBD on 27 December 2024 and resides there with her young son.

There have been a number of issues with maintenance and repairs throughout the tenancy.

The tenant has made a number of claims in her application, and we heard evidence from Ms Wyre, and three Kainga Ora staff members at the hearings on 22 January 2026 and on 23 April 2026.

The tenancy is ongoing. Monica March Hiwaira 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, comply with Healthy Homes Standards, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.

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.

In my last order dated 22 January 2026 I had set out the positions of the parties at that time, on each issue. After the second day on hearing on 23 April 2026 the following is a break down analysis of the tenants claims and landlord response.

The tenant claims that the property is uninhabitable, unsafe and needs to be rebuilt. She gave evidence of the ceiling having bad leaking problems, roof leaks, exterior needed painting, back door needed to be replaced, the toilet was unsanitary and leaked, hot water cylinder needed to be replaced, guttering needed to be cleaned, draught stopping, and pest control.

There has been attempts and repairs carried out on the issues raised by the tenant. Hot water cylinder:

The tenant accepts that she has not reported the hot water cylinder problems to the landlord because she did not want contractors coming into her house. The water heater had an expiry date on it, which sets out when it should be replaced. The water cylinder was years past its expiry date.

Since the last hearing, the hot water cylinder has been replaced. However, when the tradesperson removed the old cylinder, it was found that there was a number of old clothes and shoes behind the cylinder. The tenant says the old clothes were covered in rat droppings and mould.

Despite the tenant advising the tradesperson and the landlord of the old clothing and shoes being used to cushion the old cylinder, these items were left in place when the new cylinder was installed, rather than being removed. The landlord states that if the tenant seeks to have these items removed the hot water cylinder will need to be removed again and reinstalled. The parties will work together to determine the best outcome for this situation. Garage door lock:

The tenant claims the garage lock has not been repaired after the break-in. The landlord disputes that and says it has been fully repaired and if there were still issues the tenant has not advised them. The landlord provided work sheets and correspondence from the tradespeople who carried out the repairs, confirming the lock is now fully operational and repaired. The tenant will advise the landlord if further repairs are needed. Pest control:

The tenant says there are rat droppings found on the window ledge and hot water cylinder and in the ceiling. The landlord disputes the window ledge had evidence of droppings and says there are no existing issues/ nor evidence of pest control problems. It is accepted that previously there had been pest control issues and treatment was carried out to eradicate the pests from the property. The landlord provided job sheets and documents confirming the pest control measures taken. The landlord’s response to s45 claims.

The landlord states that they have acted reasonably and met their obligations as a landlord under s45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The landlord states that the home is compliant with Healthy Homes Standards and has provided a recent Healthy Homes Report to confirm that.

The landlord provided evidence of all the work carried out on the property and the notices provided to the tenant for access to carry out the repairs and maintenance. The following is evidence of the work carried out:

9 May 2025 the tenant reported a water leak in the bedroom at 7.15pm. An after-hours tradesperson was sent out at 10.35pm but was refused access to the property by the tenant because the tradesperson would not remove his shoes and socks to come inside. The tradespeople agreed to wear covers over their work shoes while inside the property but that was rejected by the tenant.

15 May 2025 two visits were made by a builder, and a phone call, to assess the water leak in the ceiling. The tenant did not answer the door or call.

16 May 2025 the tenant confirmed she was available on 19 th May 2025 for builders to come to the property. Temporary repairs were made, and the area was seal off to protect the ceiling from further leaks.

4 June 2025 the tenant contacted the landlord to say multiple rooms were now affected by the roof leak. The landlord attempted to send contractors to the property, but they were refused entry because of wearing shoes inside the house. The Senior Housing Support Manager contacted the tenant to say that there are Health and Safety and workplace rules that must be adhered to, and the tradespeople would need to keep their shoes on when inside carrying out repairs. The tenant objected to this and filed a claim with the Human Rights Commissioner about her cultural and ethnic rights being violated.

16 June 2025 the tenant followed up on the roof repairs. A 14-day notice was issued to the tenant due to her failing to allow access to carry out the repairs. The tenant was advised by written notice that a builder would be accessing the property on 8 July 2025 to inspect the leak, water ingress and plumbing.

Final repairs to the roof, guttering and carpentry work were carried out on 4 August 2025.

At a mediation, (6 August 2025) the tenant was offered a transfer to a new property, which she declined.

Interior repairs were to be carried out and a plan was drawn up with the tenant to be completed on 20-22 August 2025.

On 26 August 2025, the landlord sent a notice to the tenant for access to allow tradespeople to complete remaining interior work such as the plumbing, painting, and hot water cylinder.

Additional work was required and a notice for access was sent for 17 and 18 September. All work required was completed on 18 September 2025. The tenant advised that she was seeking her own Healthy Homes Report on the property.

On 24 September 2025, the tenant sent a video and photo showing water leaking through a light fixture.

On 25 September 2025, an electrician attempted to communicate with the tenant to assess the leak. The work was completed on the outside of the property.

On 7, 10 th and 14 th October 2025 the parties meet to arrange further work to be carried out. Temporary accommodation was arranged for the tenant while the work was being carried out.

On 30 October 2025, the roof work was completed, and the interior painting finalised that day.

On 11 December 2025, the annual inspection was carried out on the property and the property was deemed to be in good condition.

The landlord maintains that they met their obligations as a landlord and while some repairs took longer than anticipated due to access issues, scheduling requirements, and the nature of the work, they acted reasonably throughout.

The landlord advises that the tenant refuses access to the property and expresses concerns about the contractors’ shoes in the house and ethnicity of some of the workers.

The landlord now sends Olivia Faalili, the Team Housing leader to attend when tradespeople need to be onsite to carry out work at the property. This is because of the numerous complaints the tenant has made about tradespeople and staff members that go to the property.

The landlord advised that after the tenant obtained her Healthy Homes statement, they had a new Healthy Homes report done. The landlord confirms the heat pump is working, there are no unintentional gaps, the gutters were cleaned, and the window repaired. Despite this the tenant claims not to be satisfied with the landlord’s report.

The tenant claimed there were “wires” coming out of the wall in the lounge and the bedroom. The tenant accepts that she has not advised the landlord of the situation with the “wires.” The landlord has given an undertaking to remove or repair the wiring/aerials in the property.

The tenant claims the windows did not close properly. The landlord says all windows have been checked and are compliant.

Mould complaints were related to the hot water cupboard which has now been replaced and there have been no further complaints of mould.

The tenant has made multiple complaints regarding the conduct of tradespeople and staff attending the premises for inspections, repairs, and maintenance.

The tenant has repeatedly refused or made access difficult for tradespeople and the landlord, despite being given proper notice for entry as required under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The landlord has provided evidence of numerous repairs and maintenance carried out, including detailed records and reports of work completed and attempts to arrange access for further work.

The evidence shows that the landlord has made genuine and repeated attempts to carry out repairs and maintenance and has complied with their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.

The tenant’s refusal to allow access has hindered the landlord’s ability to complete some repairs in a timely manner.

The Healthy Homes compliance report confirms that the property is now compliant with all relevant standards.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord has met their maintenance obligations and has acted reasonably in response to the tenant’s complaints.

The tenant claim that the landlord failed to maintain the property is dismissed. Unlawful entry s48 :

Monica March Hiwaira claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant claims that on 11 July 2025 about 2.30pm the landlord, or contractors sent by the landlord, entered her property without her knowledge nor consent. The tenant was returning home after collecting her son from school and found contractors in her house. On other occasions the tenant says the contractors have left her door and gate open or unlocked.

The tenant said she became so concerned about strangers in her house she set traps, such as putting flour on the floor in the kitchen. If someone was in the house and walked through the kitchen there would be footprints in the flour.

On another occasion the tenant says the contractors were in her garden, close to her house and taking photos. She claimed the contractors were rude to her and made her feel disrespected and unsafe.

It is accepted that on one occasion the landlord did determine that a contractor had opened the back door on 15 July 2025 when he was expressly told not to do so. The contractor was subjected to “disciplinary actions” according to the landlord.

The tenant claims that one day she returned home to find scaffolding around her property without any prior knowledge. The landlord’s response:

The landlord stated that the tenant was aware of all occasions when contractors would need to access her house to do work. The Work Superior, George Tangi had at that time a good working relationship with the tenant and would inform her of the work being carried out and when contractors would be onsite.

The landlord confirmed that the contractors were allow onto the outside of the property for the purpose of maintenance. The contractors had been working on the exterior painting, constructing scaffolding, roof, and plumbing repairs.

The landlord advised that when the contractors were painting the exterior of the house, they needed to open the front and back doors to paint the door and window frames. Furthermore, on the occasion that the contractors were working on the back door they needed it open to carry out the work.

The landlord is adamant that the work supervisor told the tenant what was happening and when.

The Tribunal was provided with texts messages between the tenant and landlord arranging meetings for work to be done. Furthermore, written notices dated 24 October 2025 seeking to carry out work on 28-31 October 2025 and requiring access to the property, and 14 January 2026 for access on 19 th January 2026.

Despite the tenant having a contrary view, the landlord claims they do not have keys to the tenant’s house, garden, or garage. The landlord says that the tenant has put a padlock of the garden gate to stop the contractors coming onto the property to carry out work.

While I acknowledge there may have been an occasion where the tradespeople opened the door to carry out consented work to the property. However, this was addressed directly with the people concerned and measures put in place to ensure no further issues of that nature would occur.

I accept that the landlord was complying with their obligations as a landlord to maintain and repair the property. I do not accept that the landlord has breached the tenants’ rights by unlawful entering the property without her knowledge and consent and I dismiss this claim.

S48(7) RTA states that premises does not include the land or facilities, which means that a landlord does not need to provide notice to a tenant for entry onto the exterior of the property. A number of complaints relate to tradespeople putting up scaffolding, or a lock box outside the house and repairing stairs, without the tenants knowledge and consent. The landlord is legally entitled to carry out this work without the notice requirements.

The tenant is directed to allow reasonable access for the landlord and tradespeople for any future repairs, maintenance, or inspections, provided proper notice is given in accordance with section 48 of the RTA.

If the tenant continues to unreasonably refuse access, the landlord may apply for further orders or remedies under the RTA.

The Tribunal encourages cooperation to ensure the property remains in good condition and compliant with legal requirements. Monica March Hiwaira claims that the landlord discriminated against her and breached her quiet enjoyment:

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment:

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.

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) Residential Tenancies Act. The tenant claim:

The tenant says that the behaviour of the landlord has made her feel unsafe and unsecure in her house. There have been a number of complaints made by the tenant about the contractors. The tenant claimed that the landlord forged her signature on a document on 8 July 2025 and she subsequently filed a complaint with the Serious Fraud Office.

The tenant claims that the landlord threatens her with eviction if she did not comply with their demands and refers to emails claiming that if she does not allow access, she is breaching her tenancy agreement and there will be consequences for that.

The tenant claims the landlord put a lock box on her property without her knowledge for her key to be left out for people to access her home. The tenant says she was told if she refuses access the landlord can bring in a locksmith and gain access to her home. She feels unsafe and afraid as a result.

The tenant has made formal complaints to the New Zealand Police, Serious Fraud Office, Kainga Ora, and Human Rights Commission.

The complaints to various agencies relate to the alleged forgery of the tenant’s signature, the unlawful entry of contractors, damage to her property by contractors and the disregard for her cultural identity and human rights not to have shoes worn in the property by contractors.

The tenant claims that some workers have made racial remarks about her which she has found deeply upsetting and discriminatory.

The tenant implied that some of the contractors have made inappropriate comments to her and alleges one turned up at night to her home. The tenant claims she has no peace or privacy in the house.

The landlord response:

The landlord strongly denies that they or any contractors have been discriminatory toward the tenant. They claim that the tenant has expressed comments about the ethnicity of workers employed by the contracting company.

Furthermore, that staff are aware of the language barrier between themselves and the tenant and have used interpreting services to assist with interactions.

The landlord claims that all decisions and actions taken in relation to the tenancy, were based on operational requirements, maintenance needs and their obligation as a landlord. All decisions made are not influenced by the tenant’s race, ethnicity, or other personal characteristics.

The landlord wants the tenant to be happy and live well in the property.

The tenant filed a police complaint about forging her signature, theft of her property and harassment by a tradesperson, after investigation the file was closed without further action required.

The alleged forging of the tenant’s signature was discussed at the hearing. Evidence was given by two different workers that the tenant was present at the time of a meeting to discuss maintenance and repairs. Both witnesses categorially stated that the tenant signed the document that she claims was forged. The landlord has provided a copy of the signed document and the tenants tenancy agreement. Despite the tenant claiming the signatures were different, they looked very similar to me.

I find that the landlord has not unlawfully discriminated against the tenant. I accept that all decisions and actions taken in relation to the tenancy were based on operational requirements, maintenance needs and their obligations as a landlord. There has been no evidence provided that would support the claim that the landlords’ actions were motivated by race, ethnicity, or other personal characteristics. The necessity for tradespeople to wear shoes and work boots during working hours is not a cultural slight but a health and safety requirement under New Zealand legislation. The compromised position of a cover over the shoes, should have been more a satisfactory solution to the issue.

Nor do I find that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.

I am dismissing the tenants claims and therefore I do not need to consider exemplary damages or compensation. Filing Fee/Suppression:

As the tenant has been unsuccessful with her claims, I am not reimbursing the filing fee.

The Tribunal acknowledges the tenant’s sincerely held concerns and recognises that cultural background and personal sensitivities may have influenced her experience of the tenancy. I accept that the tenant genuinely believes her claims are justified. However, after carefully considering all the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. While I appreciate the tenant’s perspective, I am unable to uphold her claims, and they are therefore dismissed.

Generally, if a party has been unsuccessful in the Tribunal suppression of their name and details is declined. The tenant has applied for suppression, and I am granting her suppression. The reasons for my decision are that the tenant genuinely believes her claims. I believe language and cultural differences have been partially responsible for the tenant’s distress and misunderstanding. I cannot see any public interest in this case being published.

The tenancy is ongoing, and the landlord has adopted strategies to assist with dealing with the tenant and complying with their obligations as a landlord.