Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5282919 — Healthy homes
Decided 5 May 2026 · Published 5 May 2026 · Application 5282919
- Healthy homes
- Exemplary damages
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- Applications for suppression have been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details and the landlord’s name and identifying details.
- [Redacted] is removed as a party to these applications. 3. 4.
Reasons
- Although the named tenant includes both [The tenant/s] and [redacted], the tenant’s application is brought solely by [The tenant/s]. [Redacted] advised the Tenancy Services in writing that she was removed as a tenant from the tenancy and she does not wish to be included as a party to the applications. [The tenant/s] confirmed he did not wish [redacted] to be a party to the applications. The landlord supports [redacted] being removed as a party to the applications.
- [The tenant/s] appeared as the tenant and called a witness, [Witness]. [The landlord/s] attended and was represented by counsel, [The landlord’s representative 1] on days one and two. [The landlord’s support person 1] also attended as a support person for the landlord on days one and two. On day three of the hearing, [The landlord’s support person 1] represented the landlord with [The landlord’s representative 1] as a support person.
- The landlord’s application is for rent arrears and refund of the bond. When the landlord filed their application, they were also seeking termination of the tenancy and possession of the premises. The tenancy ended before the first hearing day.
- The tenant’s application is for the following: a. Breach of quiet enjoyment, b. Unlawful entry, c. Breach of HHS draught-stopping, d. Breach of HHS heating, e. Breach of HHS moisture and drainage, f. Breach of HHS ventilation, g. Failure to maintain the premises, h. Unlawful termination, i. Unlawful premises.
- On 3 May 2022 a tenancy agreement was signed by [The tenant/s] and [redacted[ as the tenants, and [The landlord/s] acting on behalf of [The landlord/s] as the landlord. The start date for the tenancy was 16 May 2022. The tenancy was for a fixed term ending on 16 May 2023.
- To provide some context, the tenancy lasted approximately three years and three months. For three years the relationship between the landlord and the tenant was largely healthy and functional. This changed in May 2025. Each party then filed an application with Tenancy Services in June 2025 and the relationship soured further.
- These applications were heard over three days. The first day was 14 October 2025, the second day was 23 December 2025 and the third day was 17 March 2026.
- On 14 October 2025, [The tenant/s] sought to produce a hardcopy of supporting documents which are a copy of the documents that he had supplied to Tenancy Services electronically. [The landlord’s representative 1] opposed them being produced.
- Because the documents are copies of what has been submitted to the Tribunal electronically, and they are essentially an aid for the benefit of the Tribunal (and the landlord), I allowed the documents to be produced.
- [The landlord’s representative 1] sought an adjournment of the day’s proceedings due to the late provision of the documents. This was declined. The documents had been filed electronically prior to the hearing. [The landlord’s representative 1] was given an adjournment of as much time as he wished to read through the documents.
- As is usual in many Tribunal hearings, the respondents were given an opportunity to respond after each claim had been set out by the applicant. The landlord chose to not respond to most of the tenant’s claims during the hearing except for limited cross-examination of [The tenant/s] and [Witness] by [The landlord’s representative 1]. This meant that a lot of [The tenant/s] information was not challenged.
- On 14 October 2025 [The landlord’s representative 1] advised that [The landlord] would not be addressing the Tribunal.
- At the start of day two of the hearing, the landlord was given another opportunity to respond to claims made by [The tenant/s] during the first day of the hearing.
- At the end of day two, [The landlord’s representative 1] advised that [The landlord’s support person 1] would like to give rebuttal evidence on day three, and this duly happened.
- On day three of the hearing, [The landlord’s support person 1] also produced a hard-copy bundle of documents. [The tenant/s] did not oppose the production of these documents.
- Although I do not refer to all of the information produced by the parties, I have read all of the information introduced by both parties. Burden of proof
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not correct. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Oral evidence, witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden. The tenant’s claims
- I deal with the tenant’s claims first as they require me to set out circumstances of the tenancy ending and this is relevant to the calculation of the landlord’s claims for rent arrears. Breach of quiet enjoyment
- claims the landlord harassed him.
- 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 (the “RTA”).
- 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.
- [The tenan/s] set out the circumstances which he says amounted to harassment. They concern seven events on six dates; 2 June 2025, 4 June 2025, 6 June 2025, 8 June 2025, 16 June 2025 and 6 August 2025.
- 2 June 2025: [The tenant/s] said [The landlord/s] attended [Tenancy address suppressed] because [The tenant/s] was having trouble with the front door locking mechanism. [The tenant/s] said he knew [The landlord/s] was going to attend but he hadn’t realised [The landlord/s] had arrived until he heard an aerosol spray being discharged. The aerosol spray was a lubricant CRC. [The tenant/s] was concerned about possible harm to his five-year old son who was nearby and he sent his son upstairs. [The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] then engaged in a discussion about the cause of the door not working and who was responsible. During this discussion [The landlord/s] shouted “Shut up” aggressively at [The tenant/s]. [The tenant/s] then asked [The landlord/s] to leave, but [The landlord/s] refused to leave and instead advanced threateningly towards [The tenant/s] who retreated.
- [The landlord/s] produced an audio recording of the encounter.
- In response, [The landlord’s representative 1] produced a letter of praise from [The tenant/s] about the property.
- [The tenant/s] said that during this time he was engaged in an acrimonious separation with his wife, and that Care of Children Act proceedings regarding their son were afoot. He said the letter of praise was motivated by his desire to stay at the property despite the difficulties with the property and in dealing with [The landlord/s], because he was anxious to provide a stable environment for his son.
- [The tenant/s] witness’ account of this incident, was that he received a telephone call from [The tenant/s] at about 6.30 pm, and he drove over to assist [The tenant/s]. When he got to [Tenancy address suppressed], [The landlord/s] was inside the house with [The landlord’s support person 1], speaking aggressively. [Witness] asked [The landlord’s support person 1] to get her father to leave. [The landlord’s support person 1] partner then arrived and [Witness] suggested to him that because it was a public holiday, [The landlord/s] should come back on another day. Eventually [The landlord’s support person 1] got [The landlord] to leave. [The landlord] was unsteady on his feet and continued to shout aggressively as he left. [Witness] considered that [The landlord/s] was being threatening throughout this encounter.
- 4 June 2025: Following the events of 2 June 2025, [The tenant/s] served a Trespass Notice on [The landlord/s].
- [Witness] said that on 4 June 2025 he was also served a trespass notice to stay away from [Tenancy address suppressed], but this one was served by [The landlord/s] in [The landlord/s]’s name. Because [The landlord/s] was not a lawful occupier of the property this was not a lawful Trespass Notice. [Witness] said he wasn’t aware of this at that time. [Witness] said he believes this was an overt attempt by [The landlord/s] to isolate [The tenant/s].
- 6 June 2025: A locksmith attended [Tenancy address suppressed] to fix the front door mechanism. [The tenant/s] asked [The landlord/s] to not attend, but [The landlord/s] attended nonetheless. The locksmith assessed that the spindle of the mechanism had been cut.
- [The tenant/s] produced a video of the incident in which [The landlord/s] can be seen and heard to say “I’m going to have you for that mate”, and “It was working perfectly three days earlier”.
- [The tenant/s] said he remained inside the house and didn’t address [The landlord/s] at all on this occasion, despite it being untrue that the mechanism had been working three days earlier.
- 8 June 2025 #1: [The landlord/s] attended [Tenancy address suppressed] with another person who [The tenant/s] came to know by the name “[redacted]”. [The tenant/s] recognised [The landlord/s]’s silver car which was parked blocking [The tenant/s]’s driveway.
- [The tenant/s] produced photographs that show [The landlord/s]’s car to be parked at the top of the narrow driveway, short of the generous parking and turning area that is closer to the house. The only apparent purpose for parking where [The landlord/s] did, and the only one raised in the hearing is to block the driveway.
- [The landlord/s] called [The tenant/s] on his telephone and told him that he ([The tenant/s]) had to let [The landlord/s] enter the premises. [The tenant/s] was uncomfortable with this and told [The landlord/s] he was trespassed and shouldn’t enter.
- [The landlord/s] approached a window, which [The tenant/s] closed. [The landlord/s] then went around to the back of the house and started pulling on the door handle of the door on the back deck. Eventually the lock gave way, the door opened and [The landlord/s] entered. [The tenant/s] was extremely concerned and he called the police on 111. He was unable to leave because [The landlord/s]’s car was blocking the driveway.
- [The landlord/s] then went from room to room opening doors and cupboards and taking photographs. He entered the workshop room, the 3D printing room, the living room (in which he lit a fire in the fireplace) the bathrooms, [The tenant/s]’s son’s room, the master bedroom, the terrace and the roof. This continued for approximately 30 minutes.
- 8 June 2025 #2: [The landlord/s] was sweeping the driveway that leads to [The tenant/s]’s house. Whether the driveway is part of the area from which [The landlord/s] is trespassed is not clear. It is possible at least that the driveway is not part of the trespassed area. However there appears to have been little utility in [The landlord/s] sweeping the driveway as it leads only to [The tenant/s]’s house. Whilst [The landlord/s] was doing this, he was also speaking on his telephone loud enough to be recorded by [The tenant/s] using the record function on his telephone. [The tenant/s] recorded [The landlord/s] from his deck at [Tenancy address suppressed].
- [The tenant/s] produced the recording in which [The landlord/s] can be heard making the following comments: “It’s not my dishwasher”, “That will all happen Monday”, “That will all go through Monday”, “We’ll get him extradited”, “He’s on the top deck now videoing”, “Next we’ll get him stricken off the medical counsel”, “That’ll be next”, “This is the worst thing that’s ever happened to him” and “He’s lucky he’s not in Aussie (muffled) straight away.”
- [The tenant/s] believes his estranged wife was the person that [The landlord/s] was talking with, and [The landlord/s] and his estranged wife were in collusion to cause emotional distress to him.
- 16 June 2025: [The tenant/s] said that his ex-wife, [The landlord/s] and [The landlord’s support person] colluded in making reports of concern to Oranga Tamariki about [The tenant/s]’s mental state and fitness to parent. [The tenant/s] produced the reports and pointed to several accusations which he said have been shown to be without foundation, incorrect and malicious. In particular he pointed to a telephone call made by the Mental Health team to [The landlord/s] on 15 June 2025 in which [The landlord/s] made statements about [The tenant/s]’s behaviour and state of mind, which were not true.
- In response to the reports being made, [The tenant/s] invited a mental health assessment team to assess him. This report was also produced by [The tenant/s].
- The Mental Health team did their assessment on 16 June 2025. On this day [The landlord/s] was again at the property, this time because a Healthy Homes assessment was being undertaken on the same day, and [The landlord/s] asserted he needed to be present for this.
- [The tenant/s] said that while he was engaged talking with the mental health team, [The landlord/s] was walking around outside the house, looking in through the windows and making throat slitting gestures to [The tenant/s].
- After the mental health team left, [The landlord/s] continued to stay on the property making threatening comments to [The tenant/s]. [The tenant/s] said [The landlord/s]’s presence was probably not required as his daughter [The landlord’s support person 1] was also accompanying the Healthy Homes assessors.
- [The tenant/s] video-recorded [The landlord/s] sitting outside on a bench- seat, calling in to [The tenant/s] making the following comments: “You’re going to lose. You should never pick on me.” When [The tenant/s] responded with “What am I going to lose?” [The landlord/s] responded with “Well first you’re going to lose your son”. “You’re going to lose your son because you’re a fucking space cadet. Everyone knows that. You’ve proved that many times ay?” “Because you’re a fucking schizo idiot. You’ll lose him cause you’re nuts. You need committing. Never pick on me mate.”
- On this day, instead of [The tenant/s]’s son coming home on the bus as usual, he was uplifted from school by [The tenant/s]’s wife. [The tenant/s] believes [The landlord/s] knew this was going to happen (even though [The tenant/s] did not know) because [The tenant/s]’s wife had told [The landlord/s]. [The tenant/s] said [The landlord/s] was referring to this when he made his comments about [The tenant/s] losing his son.
- 6 August 2025: [The tenant/s] said that from approximately 26 July 2025, he began sleeping and working at another address because he didn’t feel safe at [Tenancy address suppressed] He continued to return to [Tenancy address suppressed] on a regular basis. [The tenant/s] said he moved some belongings out of the premises, but he was adamant that a lot of his belongings remained behind.
- [The tenant/s] said that on 6 August 2025, he and [Witness] met [The landlord/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] for an inspection of the property. On this day [The landlord/s] arrived with his daughter [The landlord’s support person 1] and four other people. [The tenant/s] said that [The landlord/s] and all five of the other people entered the house. [The tenant/s] says he tried to be amicable. One of the people attempted to disconnect the washing machine from the water supply. [The tenant/s] was video recording the events with his mobile phone. One of the people with [The landlord/s] then smashed into the laundry door and said to [The tenant/s] “Get away from me. You’re annoying me.” The man then closed the laundry door. [The tenant/s] opened the door again and in response the man slammed the door on [The tenant/s]’s hand. [The tenant/s] said he cried out in pain, and went outside to run his hand under water.
- [Witness] said that he attended the property inspection on 6 August 2025 as a support person for [The tenant/s]. [Witness] said as well as [The landlord/s] and [The landlord’s support person] there were four other men with [The landlord/s]. [Witness] knew three of them. When all of them entered the house [The tenant/s] had no ability to stop them. [Witness] said he thought only two and not six people were needed. [Witness] was also video recording with his phone. One of the four men approached [Witness] and said “Don’t put that in my face.” [The landlord/s] began opening every cupboard and every drawer in the house. [Witness] turned off his phone because [The tenant/s] was recording with his phone. [Witness] said he saw the laundry door slammed on [The tenant/s]’s fingers and saw [The tenant/s] scream and go outside. [The tenant/s] then asked the man who slammed the door “What’s your name” several times, but the man only responded with “Go away”.
- [The tenant/s] said that following the four extra men attending the inspection on 6 August 2025, one of whom neither he nor [Witness] knew and who wouldn’t identify himself, and then the man slamming [The tenant/s]’s hand in the laundry door, he knew he wasn’t safe at [Tenancy address suppressed] and that it was no longer worth fighting to keep the tenancy.
- On the same day [The tenant/s] became aware that the electricity had been turned off at the property.
- [The tenant’s representative 1] provided the Tribunal a letter dated 21 July 2025 from Contact ([The tenant/s]’s electricity supplier) to “The Current Occupier” saying that the electricity to this property will be disconnected seven days after the date of this letter. There is no reference to any money owing on the account.
- [The tenant/s] said that he never contacted Contact to say anything about closing or changing his account. He said he had never seen the letter from Contact. He said somebody else must have contacted Contact and the letter must have been removed from his mailbox.
- [The tenant/s] said his television, bed, trampoline, inverter generator, gardening tools and plants were among many personal items that were still at [Tenancy address suppressed]. [The tenant/s] said that although he wasn’t sleeping there anymore and he had stopped paying rent, he was visiting regularly, and he wanted to retain the tenancy in order to facilitate getting custody of his son.
- [The tenant/s] said that on 13 August 2025, [Witness] returned to the property to collect [The tenant/s]’s personal belongings, and this resulted in [Witness] being assaulted. After that, neither [The tenant/s] nor [Witness] returned to the property. [The tenant/s] considered the belongings he left behind to have been stolen. He made a report to police and filed an insurance claim.
- In [The landlord’s support person 1] rebuttal evidence on 17 March 2026, she produced correspondence from January 2026 in which she and her sister invited [The tenant/s] to come and collect his belongings, or for him to nominate a place to which they could be delivered.
- [The tenant/s] said he declined the offers because he believed his belongings had been left out in the weather to deteriorate for a substantial amount of time, and he believed many of them were now worthless. I note many of the items and in particular the more valuable items, are electronic items that are likely to deteriorate if left outdoors.
- In summary, the Breach of Quiet Enjoyment claim is based on the following seven incidents: a. 2 June 2025, [The landlord/s] attended to fix the door mechanism and was aggressive and rude to [The tenant/s], b. 4 June 2025, [The landlord/s] served an unlawful Trespass Notice on [The tenant/s]’s friend and support person, c. 6 June 2025, A locksmith attended and [The landlord/s] made comments such as “I’m going to have you for that mate”, d. 8 June 2025 #1, [The landlord/s] forced his way into [The tenant/s]’s home and thoroughly searched the premises for approximately 30 minutes, e. 8 June 2025 #2 [The landlord/s] made numerous menacing comments about [The tenant/s] whilst engaged on a phone call on [The tenant/s]’s driveway, f. 16 June 2025, [The landlord/s] loitered outside [The tenant/s]’s home making menacing comments and throat slitting gestures while [The tenant/s] was being interviewed by the Mental Health team, g. 6 August 2025, [The landlord/s] brought five other people to the “final inspection” and behaved in an intimidating manner including one of them deliberately slamming a door on [The tenant/s]’s hand.
- The events presented by [The tenant/s] show [The landlord/s] being rude and threatening, then menacing and finally leading to an assault by an unknown person on the premises with [The landlord/s]’s authority. The information as presented by [The tenant/s] was presented almost completely unchallenged.
- Based on the information provided to me by [The tenant/s], [Witness], and [The landlord’s support person 1], I determine these events amount to a pattern of behaviour directed towards [The tenant/s] with the intention to distress and intimidate him. The requisite burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities. I find this is easily met.
- The events described above, and the claim are proved. I determine [The landlord/s] committed an unlawful act.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where 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 1986.
- [The tenant/s] resorted to seeking a trespass order against [The landlord/s] to protect his rights at his home. Whether or not [The landlord/s] was allowed to attend [Tenancy address suppressed] on the following occasions, notwithstanding the Trespass Notice being in place, he clearly had little regard for the purpose of the Trespass Notice. His continued presence at [Tenancy address suppressed], and his continued baiting and goading of [The tenant/s] as is evident on several videos and photographs produced by [The tenant/s], was an egregious and sustained breach of [The tenant/s]’s right to the quiet enjoyment of his premises.
- These breaches covered a period of more than two months and intruded into [The tenant/s]’s private affairs with his wife and child. [The tenant/s] believes the landlord’s conduct impacted the access he had with his son, and therefore the relationship he had with his son, and his ability to work.
- [The tenant/s] provided an employment contract he says he was unable to perform because of the stresses that [The landlord/s]’s conduct caused him. [The tenant/s] said that at this time he was in need of work, and the stresses he was under relating to his landlord were a contributing factor in him not feeling able to accept the work.
- The incidents involved verbal abuse, physical abuse, and emotional abuse by the landlord against [The tenant/s].
- In my view, this breach of quiet enjoyment is easily at the most serious end of the scale. I consider exemplary damages of $3,000.00, the maximum amount, are warranted for this breach. Compensation for lost wages
- As a result of [The tenant/s]’s quiet enjoyment being breached, [The tenant/s] said he was unable to accept an offer of employment.
- [The tenant/s] said that on 16 June 2025 he was given a concrete offer to work as an independent contractor. He said he was unable to accept the offer due to the stress he experienced as a result of the landlord’s conduct.
- [The tenant/s] claims he should be compensated for the moneys he was not paid having been unable to accept the employment.
- There was a complex matrix of events in [The tenant/s]’s life at this time, most of which the landlord was not involved in and had no control over. It is not possible to allocate proportion of the contributing factors, present and past, that lead to [The tenant/s]’s levels of stress.
- Nor is it possible to predict with any certainty how long [The tenant/s] would have worked or been paid, had he begun this work.
- I determine it is therefore not possible to reasonably quantify the landlord’s contribution, if any, to [The tenant/s] not being able to accept the offer of work or what his loss actually was.
- This claim is not proved. Unlawful entry
- 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.
- On 6 June 2025 [The tenant/s] asked [The landlord/s] to not attend when the locksmith came. [The landlord/s] attended anyway. I consider it reasonable for [The landlord/s] to attend the property to supervise the locksmith. It was not reasonable for [The landlord/s] to make the accompanying threatening comments, and in that purpose [The landlord/s]’s attendance was unlawful. However, I consider the penalty imposed on the Breach of quiet enjoyment covers the breach relating to the threatening comments.
- On 8 June 2025 [The landlord/s] gained entry by breaking into the premises after [The tenant/s] had made it clear that he was not comfortable with [The landlord/s] coming over. [The landlord/s] then opened cupboards and took photographs throughout the house.
- I consider this goes beyond an incident that is one in a pattern of behaviour of breaching [The tenant/s]’s quiet enjoyment. Forcing entry into a house when a lawful occupant is refusing entry, is a significantly more serious breach. [The landlord/s] had no permission and no right to enter the premises. I determine this entry was unlawful.
- On 16 June 2025 [The landlord/s] attended the property whilst the healthy homes assessors were doing an assessment. This was in contravention of the Trespass Notice but could have been justified if it were not for the fact that [The landlord/s]’s daughter [The landlord’s support person 1] was attending. [The landlord/s] took the opportunity to make repeated threatening comments and gestures towards [The tenant/s].
- I determine there was no need for [The landlord/s] to attend on 16 June 2025. I determine this entry was unlawful.
- The purpose for [The landlord/s] to attend on 6 August 2025 was ostensibly to conduct an end of tenancy inspection. However no explanation was given to [The tenant/s] or to the Tribunal why it was necessary or appropriate to have six people attend for this purpose. [The tenant/s] found this a threatening experience and [Witness] agreed.
- I determine the entry by the four people (other than [The landlord’s support person 1]), who accompanied [The landlord/s] on this occasion amounted to an unlawful entry. I determine this also goes beyond an event that is one of a series of events that amounts to a breach of quiet enjoyment.
- This claim is proved.
- I consider these four occasions of unlawful entry were serious breaches of the RTA. [The tenant/s] was denied his right to privacy and safety in his own home. As noted above, these events were significant in [The tenant/s] forming the opinion that this tenancy was no longer tenable.
- I consider it appropriate that a significant award of exemplary damages be made. I make an award of $1,000.00. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards
- claims the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards), (“HHS”).
- The HHS provides exemptions in specific circumstances.
- Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. If a private rental commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, (as is the case with this tenancy which began on 16 May 2022), the rental must comply with the HHS within 90 days of the commencement of the tenancy.
- Breaching any or all 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).
- [The tenant/s] considers the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping, heating, ventilation and moisture ingress and drainage standards and I address them in the order that he raised them in.
- The landlord had a similar general response to each of the HHS breaches and I have recorded this once under the breach of draught stopping standard. Any extra response relating to a distinct breach is recorded under that particular breach. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards: Draught stopping
- The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
- [The tenant/s] said 75% of the windows had gaps (mostly between the window sash and the window frame) which were large enough for daylight to be seen through. He produced photographs of windows which he said show gaps 4mm wide and up to 30mm long. [The tenant/s] said the gaps made the house draughty and hard to heat. He said he purchased draught stopping tape to remedy the problem himself.
- The landlord’s response to each of [The tenant/s]’s claims of HHS breaches included the following: a. The tenant was happy with the tenancy until May 2025 when he started negotiating about a rent reduction. The landlord’s evidence of this was a letter of appreciation about the property that [The tenant/s] had written to the landlord. b. The tenant did not advise the landlord of any “breaches” of HHS prior to May 2025. c. The landlord believed at the beginning of the tenancy that the property was HHS compliant because they had engaged a company to do an assessment and had received advice that the property was compliant. d. The landlord contracted a second company, [Healthy Homes Assessment Company] who undertook another HHS assessment and provided a report dated 16 June 2025. [The tenant/s] pointed out that in places on this report it is noted that the report was updated after further work was done by the landlord to bring the property up to the requisite standard.
- In essence the landlord makes two points in response to [The tenant/s]’s allegations of breaching the HHS: The first is that they took every reasonable step to comply with the HHS, and the second is that the breaches raised by [The tenant/s] are unreasonable.
- The house is an architecturally designed house which according to council records provided by [The tenant/s], was built in 1996-1997. The windows are wooden. The photographs show the windows to be in reasonable condition but in need of some mostly superficial maintenance. Gaps appear around wooden windows as timber dries out and with seasonal changes in atmospheric moisture. This has occurred in this house.
- On the balance of probabilities, I determine there is a breach of the draught stopping standard due to some gaps around some windows. The breach is not a large one. The gaps are only marginally beyond what is allowable. There is no single serious breach of this standard. I have not been provided a full inventory of the affected windows, but I do not consider that one is necessary in this case.
- A landlord is ultimately responsible for maintenance issues.
- In isolation, this is not a breach which I consider serious enough for an award of exemplary damages to be appropriate. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards; Heating
- The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
- [The tenant/s] said the main living area was the living area with the large kauri table. This living area also had a couch, bean bag, music devices and games, as well as the solid fuel heater. The landlord did not dispute this is the main living area.
- [The landlord’s support person 1] said the solid fuel heater had an output rating of 18kw which was sufficient for the living area.
- The landlord’s Healthy Homes assessment from [Healthy Homes Assessment Company], dated 16 June 2025, says the required heating for the living area is 10kw. No calculations are provided in support of this assertion. It is not known whether any calculations were done, but it appears they were not. The report says the solid fuel heater has been “assessed by a professional chimney service as been 18kw output.” [sic].
- The “professional chimney service” appears to refer to [The Chimney Services’ Company] tax invoice 2736 dated 18.7.2025 which notes “18kw heat output”. No information is provided as to how this assessment is made. This is the second of two [The Chimney Services’ Company] invoices.
- Invoice 2736 includes the following notes: “To inspect Osburn fire place. Remove broken baffle. Bricks. Fit steel baffle and brick. ($)150-. Needs 3x air tubes. Brick set. Inspection. Baffle bricks all broken. Side bricks cracked. Fitted steel baffle so it can be used.”
- Invoice 2780 includes the following notes: “Fitted temporary steel baffle plate so you can use it. I will order airtubes. 1 bricks.” No charges are recorded on this second invoice.
- I note the first invoice has an earlier date of 4.7.2025, but a later invoice number of 2780. The conclusion I draw from the appearance and information on the invoices is that [The Chimney Services’ Company] attended on
- 7.2025 but didn’t issue an invoice on that day. He then attended on
- 7.2025 and issued an invoice for work done on both dates. Later he produced the second invoice (4.7.2025) to record for the sake of completeness his attendance and the work he did on that day, which had already been paid for from Invoice 2736.
- The landlord has relied on information regarding the heating standard provided by an assessor, who has relied on information provided by a chimney sweep. There is a lack of calculations provided in support of the information provided by these two professionals. Ultimately the landlord is the party responsible for complying with the RTA, and not the people they engage for services.
- Whether or not the heater was correctly rated at 18kw or was sufficient to heat the main living area hasn’t been raised by [The tenant/s]. [The tenant/s]’s complaint is that the heater wasn’t serviceable. The landlord says they relied on the [Healthy Homes Assessment Company] report which gives the property “PASS” for heating standard. However, the report records “Unsure” as to when the heater was installed, relies on information from a chimney sweep for the rating of the heater and provides no calculations for their assessment of the size of heater required for this living area. There is nothing to suggest they checked the serviceability of the heater. On the evidence of the [The Chimney Services’ Company] invoices, the heater was not serviceable.
- [The tenant/s] said the solid fuel heater was not serviceable. He said the heater had been missing internal parts and the bricks were broken since the beginning of the tenancy. He said he lit a fire on one occasion and the unit had rattled and shook. [The tenant/s] said he had concluded the unit was unsafe and he didn’t use it again after that.
- When the landlord raised a question regarding the condition of the bricks, [The tenant/s] said that he had not broken the bricks.
- When I consider the information provided by both parties, I determine on the balance of probabilities that for the majority of this tenancy there wasn’t a serviceable qualifying heater in the main living area of these premises.
- This claim is proved. The landlord has committed an unlawful act. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards: Ventilation
- The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
- The HHS provides exemptions in specific circumstances.
- [The tenant/s] says the landlord breached the ventilation standard in that the kitchen and bathrooms did not have extractor fans.
- The landlord said that even though the kitchen and bathrooms did not have extractive fans they did have opening windows.
- The Landlord’s [Healthy Homes Assessment Company] report rates the ventilation standard as “Fail” due to the lack of extractor fans in the bathrooms or kitchen.
- [The landlord’s support person 1] said that after the tenant served a 14- day notice-to-remedy on the landlord (dated 28 June 2025) the landlord attempted to address the lack of extractor fans, but was hampered by the tenant not making access easy. [The landlord’s support person 1] said that she was using her partner for the electrical work because he is an electrician, and [The tenant/s] objected to this.
- I determine that for the duration of this tenancy there were no mechanical extractor fans in the two bathrooms or the downstairs kitchen.
- This claim is proved. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
- [The tenant/s] said there was mould in the downstairs bathroom.
- I do no find it proved that the mould was caused by the lack of extractor fans, and [The tenant/s] did not present its presence as being a significant problem. Nonetheless, the purpose of extractor fans is to improve the living environment in many ways. It is more likely than not the living environment would have been improved if the landlord had complied with the HHS regulations. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards: Moisture ingress and drainage
- The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires buildings comprising residential tenancies to have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water. That includes gutters, downpipes and drains.
- [The tenant/s] said the premises allowed water to enter around the fireplace chimney flue, around the ceiling corner of the main living room, and the hot water cylinder, (also referred to as “the boiler room”).
- [The tenant/s] provided photographs that show a pot with stones and water in it on top of the solid fuel heater which he says collected approximately 2 litres of water in an evening from a drip around the chimney flue. He said this happened whenever it rained heavily. He provided a photograph that showed water in front of the solid fuel heater which he said was from the same leak.
- In the corner of the living room there was a leak around a ceiling beam. [The tenant/s] said water dripped off the beam and also ran down the wall. [The tenant/s] produced a report depicting moisture levels in the walls and on the beam was produced and according to [The tenant/s] it showed an extremely high level of “641”. [The tenant/s] showed a photograph of a fungus growing on the beam which he said shows that the beam was wet.
- [The tenant/s] also produced photographs of the hot water cylinder cupboard with stains on the chipboard. [The tenant/s] said that when it rained heavily water ran down the wall.
- On 7 June 2025, [The tenant/s] engaged Z from G Ltd to undertake an assessment at [Tenancy address suppressed] including ascertaining the moisture levels.
- The report from Z included the following assessment: “The visual inspection identified both historical and recent signs of roof-related leaks in the kitchen/family area, hot water cupboard niche, shared bathroom, and one of the bedrooms.”
- The landlord opposed the introduction of this information because the maker of the information was not present for questioning.
- I allowed the information to be produced. I assess the information to be genuine and I see nothing that indicates the information is unreliable or incorrect.
- [The tenant/s] said that every time it rained approximately 100mls of water would enter the upstairs kitchen through the french-doors. When the rain was particularly heavy approximately one litre of water would come in.
- The landlord accepted there were leaks in the house. [The landlord’s support person 1] said the roof had recently been replaced, and some of the marks on the ceilings pre-dated this work.
- [The landlord’s representative 1] questioned [The tenant/s] as to whether the moisture in the house was due to condensation. [The tenant/s] did not accept this.
- I determine there were leaks in the premises throughout [The tenant/s]’s tenancy. Some were more serious than others in particular the leak around the flue in the living room.
- This claim is proved. The landlord committed an unlawful act. Remedy for HHS breaches
- I determine that the HHS draught-stopping, heating, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage standards have been breached. I find [The landlord/s] committed an unlawful act.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
- I consider the breach of the HHS to be quite significant. In particular I consider the breaches relating to the lack of a qualifying heater and the lack mechanical extractor fans to be the most serious. These breaches were a total failure and encompassed a long period of time (more than one season).
- I determine exemplary damages are appropriate in this case and I award $2,400.00 for the breaches.
- I also make an award for general damages against the landlord. I consider the loss of amenity to the tenant to be significant across this tenancy. For the lack of qualifying heater I award an amount based on a rent rebate of $15.00 per week, for the lack of mechanical extractor fans I award $10.00 per week and for moisture ingress I award $15.00 per week.
- This totals $40.00 per week for 143 weeks. I have deducted the 90 days compliance timeframe from the start of the tenancy and the time at the end of the tenancy when the premises were made compliant. Compensation for Moisture Report
- On 7 June 2025, [The tenant/s] engaged Z from G Ltd to ascertain the moisture levels at [Tenancy address suppressed]. This information was relevant to understanding whether the premises were compliant with the HHS.
- The information that resulted from the inspection was that the premises were not compliant. [The tenant/s] has a right under tenancy law to live in premises that are compliant with HHS. A landlord must provide information that accurately assesses and records the condition of the premises relative to the HHS. The landlord did not provide this information.
- I am satisfied [The tenant/s]’s decision to engage an expert to assess the condition of the premises was reasonable in the circumstances. The information about the weathertightness of the premises had not been provided by the landlord, and [The tenant/s]’s serious suspicions about the premises not being weathertight were well-founded.
- [The tenant/s]’s inspection showed the premises to be non-compliant.
- I consider it reasonable in these circumstance that the landlord reimburse [The tenant/s] for the cost of this report.
- [The tenant/s] produced an invoice for $632.50 from [Inspection Company] for this work. Lack of grabrail and balustrades: Unlawful premises
- [The tenant/s] claimed the premises were unlawful premises in that he says they were never issued, a Code Compliance Certificate (a “CCC”) from the [City Council], as it then was.
- [The tenant/s] said he had identified a number of outstanding issues with the property including the lack of a grabrail in the stairwell leading up to the balcony, and the lack of a balcony balustrade of sufficient height. [The tenant/s] said the required height now for the balustrade is 1000mm, and the actual height of it was 760mm. (It is possible that when constructed the balcony balustrade was compliant with the requirements as they then were.) [The tenant/s] said he closed the area off to his young five year old son.
- [The tenant/s] pointed out that since his tenancy ended, these two issues have been remedied by the landlord.
- The landlord did not dispute the premises had not been granted a CCC. It appears [The tenant/s]’s submission on this point may be correct, but I do not intend to make a finding either way. I am satisfied that the premises were serviceable as a residential premises but with certain defects. I determine the lack of “sign-off” by Council isn’t sufficient for this property to be designated unlawful under the RTA.
- In this case [The tenant/s] did not raise any significant loss of amenity or harm that was caused to him or his family through the property lacking a grabrail and balcony balustrade. He did say he closed off the area to his son, but there was no information produced that indicated this provided any hardship to anyone. In as much as this is a claim under the RTA, I consider the breach to be more serious from a compliance perspective than the impact it had on the tenants’ amenity.
- In effect, these breaches amount to a breach of the landlord’s failure to maintain, and I include it in the following section under that heading. Failure to maintain the premises
- Under section 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- claims that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA in the following ways (including the lack of grab rail in the internal stairs and the lack of balcony balustrade as discussed above): a. Lack of grabrail and insufficient height of balcony balustrade, b. Exposed electrical wires under sink, c. Dishwasher that gives an electric shock.
- [The tenant/s] said he raised these issues orally during the tenancy, but it wasn’t until he became aware they amounted to breaches under the RTA, that he first put them in writing in a 14-Day notice to remedy to the landlord on 31 May 2025. This notice mentions the dishwasher problem, but not the other two problems.
- The landlord responded on the same day with a request to, and notice for access to address the problem with the dishwasher.
- The grabrail and balustrade were raised in a subsequent 14-Day notice to remedy on 28 June 2025.
- The landlord said that until [The tenant/s]’s request for a rent reduction was declined in late May 2025, [The tenant/s] had made little if any complaints about the property. In June 2025, [The tenant/s] then simultaneously stopped paying full rent and started making complaints about the property.
- [The landlord’s support person 1] said the landlord attempted to address the maintenance issues raised by [The tenant/s], but [The tenant/s] made access difficult which made maintenance difficult.
- [The landlord’s support person 1] said the electrician they preferred to use was her husband.
- [The tenant/s] said he was not happy with a member of the landlord’s family being the tradesperson as he no longer trusted the landlord.
- No details regarding [The tenant/s] resisting tradespeople attending other than [The landlord’s support person 1]’s husband were given.
- The lack of grabrail and insufficient height of the balcony balustrade defects had not been remedied by the time [The tenant/s] moved out just under six weeks later.
- In response to the dishwasher giving an electric shock, the landlord said an electrician attended and reported that the controller looked like it had been deliberately damaged. [The tenant/s] said he had not caused the damage to the dishwasher.
- The landlord did not respond to the exposed electrical wires under the sink.
- A tenant has an obligation under the RTA section 40(1)(d) to notify a landlord of the need for repairs. Having done this, I consider the landlord responded within a reasonable time. Therefore, I do not consider this to be a breach of the landlord failing to maintain.
- The exposed wires and the issue with the grabrail and balcony balustrades were different to the faulty dishwasher in that they were not issues caused during the tenancy; they were both issues that predated the tenancy, and which did not require the tenant to bring to the landlord’s notice. I am persuaded these were breaches of the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises.
- The claim is proved. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
- In considering whether an award of exemplary damages is appropriate, I consider the effect the breach had on the tenant and the length of time of the breach and the effect on the tenant. I determine that even though there could have been a serious consequence resulting from the breaches, in this case there was no serious consequence at all. This does not absolve the landlord of their responsibilities. I consider a low award of $400.00 exemplary damages is appropriate. Rat poison
- [The tenant/s] said that on 21 June 2025, his dog eat rat poison that the landlord had laid in the [The tenant/s]’s yard without notifying him.
- [The tenant/s] said his dog became extremely sick. [The tenant/s] took his dog to a veterinary clinic and had the dog treated. The bill for treatment was $649.61.
- [The tenant/s] produced an invoice from the vet and photographs of rat poison in the yard.
- [The tenant/s] concluded the landlord was the person who put the rat poison there because the landlord lived nearby, and their relationship was already strained.
- The landlord did not respond to this claim.
- I am persuaded by [The tenant/s]’s information that the landlord or someone with the landlord’s consent could have placed exposed rat poison in [The tenant/s]’s yard. However, I am no persuaded on the balance of probabilities that it was the landlord or someone with the landlord’s consent who did this.
- Nor have I been persuaded on the balance of probabilities that [The tenant/s]’s dog became sick because it eat exposed rat poison placed in the yard.
- I consider [The tenant/s]’s argument has merit, but I consider the connections not sufficiently made out.
- This claim is not proved.
Who caused the damage?
- The claims made under breach of HHS and failing to maintain the premises, involve several instances of damage to the property which the landlord suggested could have been caused as acts of vandalism by the tenant. This includes damage to the front door mechanism, the washing machine, the bricks in the fireplace and even the rat poison that was found on the grass.
- In each case the [The tenant/s] has denied causing the damage.
- I note that whereas it is possible [The tenant/s] could have caused the damage, it is equally possible that [The landlord/s] could have caused the damage. Each has a plausible motive, each had access to the property and opportunity to cause the damage, and each had a reason as to why such behaviour could be seen as self-defeating and therefore unlikely.
- I found [The tenant/s] to appear honest and helpful in both making his claims and answering the questions I asked him. When on occasion I requested him to “get to the point” it was because he was intent in providing context that had already been provided. I did not find his answers to be confused or evasive. I have not seen or heard any reason to question his honesty.
- I have not been persuaded in any of the claims that [The tenant/s] deliberately caused damage to the property. Pest control
- [The tenant/s] is seeking compensation for pest control in 2023, 2024 and 2025.
- [The tenant/s] said that over this time he paid to control ants and rodents at the property.
- A tenant is responsible for keeping a premises reasonably clean and tidy during their tenancy and for notifying the landlord of damage to the premises. The effect of these provisions is that a tenant has obligations to maintain the premises and where these obligations run out, the tenant has an obligation to notify the landlord of problems.
- I do not consider it reasonable that the tenant not notify the landlord of the breach, remedy it themselves and then three years later seek reimbursement for costs.
- This claim is not proved. Compensation for relocation costs
- [The tenant/s] is claiming $189.48 for packing supplies relating to his moving at the end of the tenancy.
- [The tenant/s] was in significant rent arrears at the end of the tenancy. Both parties filed claims against the other. I have determined [The tenant/s] was in breach of the RTA and he would not have been able to resist an application for termination of the tenancy if he had still been living there given the amount of rent arrears that had accumulated. There was an inevitability about the ending of this tenancy. On Friday May 30 [The tenant/s] wrote an email to [The landlord’s support person 1] that “unless a substantial reduction in rent is possible, I won’t be able to sustain living here.”
- In more ways than one the tenancy was no longer tenable.
- This does not excuse strict adherence by the parties to the RTA. To the extent that the termination was unlawful, remedies have been awarded.
- However, [The tenant/s] has not persuaded me that there is a lawful or reasonable basis for the landlord paying for, or contributing to, his relocation or packing supply costs.
How did the tenancy come to an end?
RTA sections 61 (Abandonment) and 60AA (Unlawful termination)
- No notice to end the tenancy was given by either party.
- The reason for the end of tenancy is not agreed.
- The landlord said [The tenant/s] abandoned the premises sometime in July 2025 whilst in rent arrears. They were willing to consider 6 August 2025 to be the last day of the tenancy, and to waive any notice period for the tenant. They ask the Tribunal to order this was the date the tenancy ended.
- [The tenant/s] said he was forced out of the tenancy by the landlord bullying him and cutting off his power.
- Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
- Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- [The tenant/s] is seeking exemplary damages for the landlord unlawfully terminating the tenancy.
- The landlord produced photographs taken prior to the inspection on 6 August 2025 that show [Tenancy address suppressed] to be largely devoid of [The tenant/s]’s belongings. The photographs show the property wasn’t being used on a daily basis by [The tenant/s] as his place of residence. The landlord says this shows that prior to 6 August 2025, [The tenant/s] had abandoned the tenancy.
- Abandonment is covered by the RTA section 61 which says: “On the application of the landlord, the Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy where it is satisfied that the tenant has abandoned the premises and the rent is in arrear.” In terms of The RTA, abandonment is a finding of fact made by the Tribunal.
- Abandonment is not defined in the RTA. An online search of the meaning of abandonment, given by Collins Dictionary says abandonment means: “To leave a person, place, or thing permanently, or to stop an activity before completing. It implies deserting something, often due to necessity or by giving up, such a as abandoning a car, a project, or a habit.”
- [The tenant/s] accepted he was in rent arrears. He said some of his belongings were still at the premises and he had reasons for maintaining the tenancy, which included presenting a stable address for custody issues relating to his son.
- Even if [The tenant/s] was slowly moving out of the premises with the intention of giving notice eventually, this is not the same as abandoning the premises.
- The information that [The tenant/s] still had some belongings at the premises was disputed by the landlord.
- The photographs provided by the parties show it to be correct that [The tenant/s] still had belongings at the premises on 6 August 2025. I also accept [The tenant/s]’s information that he was coming and going from the premises until this date, despite feeling threatened after the events that occurred in June and July 2025.
- [The tenant/s] said he discovered on 6 August 2025 the power had been disconnected at the premises.
- The landlord produced a letter from “Contact” advising “The Current Occupier” that power supply to the property will be disconnected in the coming days. It says: “Since we haven’t heard from anyone at this property to let us know they want to become a customer of Contact, or otherwise, we will be disconnecting the electricity to the property on or after seven days from the date of this letter.”
- [The tenant/s] said he hadn’t seen the letter before, but it indicated someone had contacted Contact and told them the property was unoccupied. He said he was not the person who had done this and he didn’t know who the person was.
- The landlord did not provide any information regarding this.
- [The tenant/s] said that because he did not feel safe returning to the property after having his hand slammed in the door on 6 August 2025, and because the power had been disconnected, he gave up on the tenancy, and subsequently never returned to the premises after 6 August 2025.
- [The tenant/s] said he arranged for [Witness] to go to the property on 13 August 2025 to collect his remaining belongings, but when [Witness] went there, he was also assaulted.
- [The tenant/s] said that [Witness]’s report of being assaulted confirmed to [The tenant/s] that he was not safe to return.
- The landlord did not dispute that [The tenant/s] and [Witness] were assaulted.
- I determine that prior to 6 August 2025 [The tenant/s] had not abandoned the premises.
- I determine that on 6 August 2025 the landlord took back possession of the premises through means involving physical force. By “force” I am referring to the physical presence of people who were hostile to [The tenant/s], and the unnamed person slamming a door on [The tenant/s]’s hand.
- I determine that the landlord in taking possession of the property, unlawfully terminated the tenancy on 6 August 2025.
- The tenant’s claim is proved.
- I determine exemplary damages are appropriate in this case.
- [The tenant/s] said in the hearing he wanted to continue living there in spite of all the difficulties. Even if this were true it probably was not tenable as he had already communicated in writing to the landlord his intention to look for a more affordable place to live.
- The breach included bullying tactics by the landlord on 6 August 2025, which were particularly effective against [The tenant/s] due to the pattern of threats made by the landlord in the previous two months. The breach was aggravated by the bullying tactics involving other people. The landlord refused to name the person involved who was unknown to [The tenant/s], and this veil of secrecy aggravated the perceived threat to the tenant and therefore the breach.
- Lawful means were available to the landlord to end the tenancy, but the landlord did not avail himself of these means.
- When I consider these factors, I consider the breach of section 61 of the RTA to be serious. I consider the award of exemplary damage should reflect this, and I make an award of $3,000.00. Compensation for lost items
- [The tenant/s] said he was seeking replacement value for the items he left behind on 6 August 2025. He says this amount to $10,000.00.
- I accept [The tenant/s]’s submission that the return of damaged items should not invalidate his claims for their replacement value. A number of the items including gardening tools, pot-plants, compost bins, garden beds are likely to have deteriorated only minimally if at all since the tenancy ended. These items are unlikely to be considered damaged and I have not included them in an award. Any items that have deteriorated in a meaningful way should be replaced on a like-for-like basis. Depreciation should be included in the calculation. No meaningful information on the value of the electronic items is before the Tribunal. I make a partial award on the basis of the following items had reached 80% of their expected life prior to 6 August 2025. This is a minimal award for [The tenant/s], but it is for [The tenant/s] to prove his claim on the balance of probability and without more accurate information from [The tenant/s] that is all I am prepared to award the following: a. TV minus depreciation = $900.00 x 20% = $180.00 b. Titan inverter generator $1,368.00 x 20% = $273.60 c. Bed in box mattress $299.00 x 20% = $60.00 d. Makita line trimmer $188.00 x 20% = $37.60 e. Ozito leaf blower $72.00 x 20% = $14.40 f. Sony soundbar $448.00 x 20% = $89.60 g. Washing machine $999.00 x 20% = $200.00 TOTAL $675.20 The landlord’s claims Rent arrears
- The landlord is seeking rent arrears and refund of the bond. The parties agree that the tenancy effectively ended on 6 August 2025. Both parties also agree that as of that date, rent was in arrears by $8,400.00.
- [The tenant/s] claims that because of the circumstances of the tenancy ending, he shouldn’t be liable for this full amount of rent arrears.
- I have determined [The tenant/s]’s claims and awarded where appropriate for compensation for the breaches made by the landlord against his tenancy rights.
- [The tenant/s] had an obligation to pay rent and I have not heard any reason that persuades me the tenant should not be liable for the rent until the end of the tenancy.
- This claim is proved.
- Because both parties have substantially succeeded with their respective claims, I make no order concerning the reimbursement of the filing fee. These costs shall lie where they fall.