Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5289154 — Rent arrears
Decided 7 Nov 2025 · Published 7 Nov 2025 · Application 5289154
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Trott Dairy Limited immediately.
- [The tenant/s] must pay Trott Dairy Limited $3,982.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, termination, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond. At the hearing, the claims for compensation and termination were withdrawn by the Landlord.
- The Tenants has applied for work orders, breach of Healthy Home Standards, exemplary damages, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
- At the hearing the Tenants withdrew their claim for work orders.
- The onus is on the Applicant to prove their case which means the parties, in bringing their application to the Tribunal, must provide all the evidence to support what they are saying. Landlords’ claims
How much is owed in rent?
- The tenancy ended on 10 August 2025. The Landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $6075.00 at the end of the tenancy.
- The Tenants disputed this amount stating the arrears should have been $2282.86 because there were payments made between 25 September 2025 to 16 October 2025 which were not accounted for. This included a $3070.00 payment made by the Tenants mother and the Tenants wanted to end the tenancy earlier on 3 August 2025. Their evidence was confusing as it was not supported by a rent summary which may have shown more clearly what they were trying to convey.
- The Landlord pointed out in the rent summary where the mother’s payment was accounted for.
- In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord’s rent summary sets out the payments made by the Tenants and how the rent arrears were accrued. For this reason the Tenants claim is dismissed. Tenants’ claims Breach of Healthy Home Standards
- The Tenants submitted that the Landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards for several reasons: a) Gaps in most windows prevented them from being locked; b) Only one door key was provided; c) Roof insulation was a fire hazard as the pink batts were not laid properly; d) Lounge floor was uneven; e) Cracks around the house allowed airflow and moisture to enter; f) Moisture near the house and through the garage drainage hole; g) Drain was full of leaves and there was mould on the exterior walls; and h) No working oven.
- The Tenants stated they verbally notified the Landlord of these issues at the start of the tenancy but received no response. To support their claim, they provided photographs showing some cracks in the exterior walls and insulation material in the ceiling.
- The Landlord submitted that a Healthy Homes compliance report dated 29 August 2022 confirmed the property met all requirements. They stated that the Tenants’ photographs merely showed dirty window tracks and seals, the downlight in the laundry was compliant, the empty boxes in the roof cavities did not constitute a fire hazard and liquefaction under the carpet causing dampness was unsupported by the evidence. The Landlord also explained that the home’s age meant window locks were not standard features, that drains were cleaned before the tenancy began, and that insulation had been topped up by 100– 150mm.
- A breach of the Healthy Homes Standards occurs when a Landlord fails to meet the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
- From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
- Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
- There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
- 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 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.
- Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
- In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenants has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the Landlord is in breach of the Healthy Home standards. A Healthy Home standards report could have supported their claim or even expert evidence from a tradesperson. The photographs were insufficient. Whilst the Landlord did provide a Healthy Home Standards report that was over three years old, the onus lies on the Applicant to prove their case by providing the appropriate evidence.
- For this reason, the Tenants claim is dismissed. Oven defects
- The Tenants claimed that the oven was not working for approximately eight months and sought compensation of 15% of the rent for loss of amenity and 20% for stress and inconvenience, totalling $2,628.65. The Tenants stated that the oven would not roast food, that the elements needed replacement soon after moving in, and that despite informing the Landlord, no repairs were made. The Tenants further explained that they had to rely on takeaway food and were unable to contact the Landlord due to a broken phone.
- The Landlord responded that, following the Tenants’ departure, the oven and elements were tested and confirmed to be operational. The only issue identified was minor corrosion to the drip tray caused by spillage and poor cleaning, which did not affect function or safety. There was no evidence provided to show the oven was non-operational during the tenancy.
- Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a Landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
- In considering the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Tenants have not proven there were any issues with the oven during the tenancy. There is no evidence that the Tenants notified the Landlord of the alleged fault, and if the problem had persisted for eight months, it would be reasonable to expect some record of communication, such as an email, breach notice, or Tribunal application. Given the oven is an essential household appliance, the absence of such evidence undermines the credibility of the claim.
- For this reason the claim is dismissed. Removal of tree
- The Tenants claimed reimbursement of $165.00 for the removal of a damaged tree that allegedly split and fell onto the washing line in mid-June 2025. The Tenants stated they paid for the removal themselves and that the Landlord attended the property but did not comment on the issue. A neighbour assisted with trimming the tree. The Tenants provided a photograph of the broken washing line.
- The Landlord responded that they were not informed that the tree had fallen or required removal and that no receipt, invoice, or photographs were provided. The Landlord also stated they were aware that the Tenants and neighbours regularly trimmed overhanging branches and that the clothesline, which had become unhinged, was repaired by someone the Landlord arranged.
- Under section 40(1)(d) RTA, Tenants must notify the Landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises or of the need for any repairs.
- In considering the evidence, the Tenants did not provide evidence that they had notified the Landlord of the issue or that they had paid for someone to remove it. The claim for reimbursement is unsubstantiated.
- The claim is dismissed. Bedroom door handle
- The Tenants claimed $20.00 for repairs to the bedroom two door handle, stating the door was jammed when they moved in and appeared to have been fixed with a nail. They did not notify the Landlord during the tenancy of the damage.
- The Landlord submitted that the door was damaged by the Tenants and that the room was not used for most of the tenancy.
- In considering the evidence, as no evidence was provided by the Tenants that the issue was reported or that costs were incurred, the claim is dismissed. Cutlery drawer rail
- The Tenants claimed that the cutlery drawer rail in the kitchen cupboard was broken and could not be used. They stated the issue was discovered mid- tenancy but were unsure if it was reported.
- The Landlord submitted that this was minor wear and tear and not raised during inspections.
- In considering the evidence, the issue was not substantiated by evidence from the Tenants and therefore no compensation is awarded.
- The claim is dismissed. Flooding in the garage
- The Tenants claimed flooding in the garage which was caused by a hole in the downpipe. This resulted in damage to household items including a couch, bed frame, camping supplies, and a medical kit. A photograph was provided of the downpipe and the hole. The Tenants also stated they submitted a video. The Tenants advised the Landlord of this issue during all three inspections.
- The Landlord accepted there was a small hole in the pipe but stated it was located about 1.5 metres from the garage and unlikely to have caused flooding unless the garage door was left open. The Landlord arranged for repairs and conducted water tests showing minimal leakage. This included placing a hose up on the roof and pouring water for a couple of hours down the pipe. There was no water build up.
- In considering the evidence, there was no evidence received by the Tribunal to confirm that flooding entered the garage due to the downpipe. There was also no evidence of the damaged household items or receipts for their purchase.
- The claim is dismissed. Vehicle damage
- The Tenants alleged that the Landlord’s contractors damaged their vehicle when visiting the property.
- The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this issue so the Tenants may want to consider filing a claim in an alternate Tribunal. Heat pump
- The Tenants stated the heat pump leaked down the wall for several months which they cleaned themselves.
- The Landlord stated they were not advised of any leak, that filters are the Tenants’ responsibility to maintain, and no wall staining was observed after the tenancy ended.
- In considering the evidence, the Tenants did not provide sufficient proof that they had notified the Landlord of the heat pump issues or the cleaning undertaken.
- The claim is dismissed. Cleaning
- The Tenants claimed $300.00 for cleaning, alleging the property was not adequately cleaned at the start of the tenancy. The ridges, skirting and oven were particularly dirty. They did not advise the Landlord at the time of this issue.
- The Landlord stated the property was left clean by the previous Tenants, with no concerns raised during the initial inspection.
- In considering the evidence, the Tenants did not report the issue at the start of the tenancy or provide evidence of the dirty condition.
- The claim is dismissed. Painting
- The Tenants claimed reimbursement for painting the garage and fence and the purchase of paint and buckets.
- The Landlord submitted these were voluntary improvements made by the Tenants without consent or request.
- In considering the evidence, as the work completed by the Tenants was not authorised by the Landlord, the claims are dismissed. Solar lights
- The Tenants claimed $22.00 for broken solar lights allegedly damaged by the Landlord’s contractor.
- The Landlord acknowledged the possibility but noted there was no receipt or proof of value.
- In considering the evidence, without evidence to show costs of the lights, the Tribunal is unable to award compensation to the Tenants.
- The claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
- The Tenants sought exemplary damages because the Landlord failed to lodge the bond within 23 working days. The Tenants provided the bond money to the Landlord on 8 October however this was not processed until after months later.
- The Landlord explained the delay was due to confusion with multiple Tenants and mismatched signatures which needed clarification. The bond was lodged once the previous rental property bond (which the Tenants rented through the Landlord) was refunded.
- A Landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- 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 interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- In considering the evidence, I find that while the Landlord did commit an unlawful act in lodging the bond after 23 days, they did not intend to as they were waiting for the previous rental property bond to be processed and there were administrative delays.
- For this reason, the claim is dismissed.
- The Tenants also claimed exemplary damages because the Landlord failed to maintain the property, citing general dissatisfaction and stress. They had paid rent and the property was not up to standard. As a result of the Landlords failure to maintain, the Tenants mental health started crashing.
- The Landlord submitted they maintained the property and provided an inspection report dated 3 March 2025 and a building report dated 9 September 2025.
- In considering the evidence, I find the Tenants have not proven that the Landlord failed to maintain the property from the reports provided and they lacked evidence of when they notified the Landlord of repairs required. There was also no evidence to show that their mental health deteriorated and this was directly caused by the Landlord’s alleged failure to maintain the property.
- The claim is unsubstantiated and dismissed.
- The Tenants claimed exemplary damages for unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment when the Landlord attended the property to conduct viewings without the Tenants consent. They submitted the Landlord brought at least three people over for viewings. When the Tenants refused entry, the Landlord stood at the back of the house and on the driveway. The impact of this was that there was a significant deterioration in the Tenants wellbeing. She had suffered from sexual abuse previously and the Landlords behaviour caused her distress.
- The Landlord submitted she brought people for viewings on Saturday 25 June 2025 but they never entered the property. The Landlord provided five days notice to the Tenants and at that stage, the Tenants were in significant rent arrears.24 hours prior to the proposed viewing time, the Tenants refused entry. The Landlord was also never notified by the Tenants of these complaints and they had received notice that the Tenants neighbours were actually fearful of the Tenants. They reported multiple disturbances and abuse coming out of the property and a letter was provided to substantiate this.
- In considering the evidence, the Landlord did not enter the property so no unlawful entry was committed. They provided proper notice to the Tenant to show the property because the Tenants were vacating. There was no intention to breach the Tenants peace and quiet and there was no medical evidence of the impact on the Tenant.
- The claim is dismissed.
- The Tenants claimed the Landlord committed unlawful acts by recording inaccuracies in their rent documentation. There was no specific evidence of falsification presented.
- The Landlord explained that the records were managed through the tenancy portal so it would be difficult to falsify any documents.
- In considering the evidence, the Tenants did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the Landlord was not recording information accurately. There was no documentation provided.
- The claim is dismissed.
- The Tenants sought compensation for stress and mental health impacts during the tenancy. The Tenants had a letter confirming her medical breakdown on 8 July 2025. The Tenants suffered a lot of stress after being in a domestic violence relationship.
- The Landlord submitted they never intentionally caused stress towards the Tenants, and they were not aware of the Tenants mental health challenges. They believed they were kind and considerate to the extent they had allowed the rent arrears to increase substantially. The Landlord never threatened the Tenants. She found their communication was inconsistent and confusing at times.
- In considering the evidence, while the Tribunal acknowledges the Tenants’ personal difficulties, there is no evidence of intentional or negligent conduct by the Landlord that would justify compensation and this is not an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be claimed.
- The claim is dismissed.
- As the Landlord has been wholly successful in their claim, the Tenants must reimburse the filing fee. As there have been sensitive personal and medical issues disclosed by the Tenants in their evidence, I have granted name suppression for the Tenants.