Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5293239 — Property damage at 9B Wilkie Place, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060
Decided 7 Oct 2025 · Published 7 Oct 2025 · Application 5293239
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The tenant has applied for suppression. Because she has had upheld, the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Fair Rentals Limited and Deluxmi Bernard must pay [the tenant] $1,222.50 immediately, calculated as shown below.
- The Bond Centre must pay the bond of $2,780.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s], immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Introduction
- The tenant signed a tenancy agreement for the premises for a term from 13 September 2024 to 12 September 2025 with the Angel Trust of which Ms Bernard is trustee.
- Ms Bernard then appointed Fair Rentals Ltd as property manager. A new agreement on the same terms was signed on 22 November 2024.
- Until that new agreement was signed the tenant continued to pay the rent to Ms Bernard.
- During winter of 2024 the tenant experienced problems with the premises being draughty and subject to leaks. She informed the landlord who arranged for minor repairs to be done.
- The tenant was concerned that those repairs were not addressing the causes and had a Healthy Homes assessment done by [Assessor].
- That report assessed the premises as failing to meet the Healthy Homes standards for heating, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. That report was not initially given to the landlords although the tenant told the property manager that a healthy homes assessment had been done and the premises were found not to be compliant.
- The tenancy ended by agreement on 2 August 2025. No claim is made for rent through to the end of the fixed term. Applications
- Both parties have brought applications to the Tribunal.
- The tenant claims: a. compensation for breach of her right to quiet enjoyment; b. compensation for the cost of repairing a broken stair; c. compensation for the cost of the Healthy Homes report; d. compensation for the effect of the premises non-compliance with Healthy Homes standards.
- The landlord claims: a. compensation for cleaning costs; b. compensation for repair costs Was the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment breached?
- A landlord must not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in the use of the premises 1 .
- Because the tenant had continued to pay the rent to Ms Bernard, it was not showing as paid in the property manager’s records.
- Despite the tenant having told the property manager that the rent was being paid to Ms Bernard and would continue to be paid to her until a new agreement was in place, 14-day day breach notices were issued, a reference to debt collection was made and the tenant was twice contacted by debt collectors. An application to the Tribunal was made for unpaid rent before being withdrawn shortly before mediation, when the property manager confirmed with Ms Bernard that the rent had in fact been paid.
- It is not necessary for the parties to sign a new tenancy agreement if the property management changes. The tenant’s insistence on continuing to pay the rent as she had before, until a new agreement was signed, contributed to the misunderstanding.
- Nevertheless, the landlord continued to allege, to the point of issuing breach notices and potentially damaging the tenant’s credit rating, that the tenant had not paid her rent, when a simple check would have revealed otherwise.
- That imposed a significant and unwarranted stress on the tenant, in breach of her right of quiet enjoyment. I find a modest payment of compensation would be fair.
Should the tenant be compensated for the stair repair cost?
- The tenant’s evidence, which the landlord does not dispute, is that when moving furniture in, a stair gave way beneath one of the people helping with the move.
- The landlord refused to repair it, saying it was the tenant’s responsibility. The tenant had it repaired at her cost. The cost is proved by the invoice provided.
- In these circumstances, a tenant does not have to repair damage to the premises unless it is caused by a careless act or omission. 2
- That is not the case here and the tenant should be compensated for the repair cost. 1 S.38 RTA 2 S. 49A and 49B(2) RTA Healthy Homes compliance 28 In the agreement, the landlord says the premises comply with Healthy Homes standards. The landlord had an assessment done in November 2024, which says so.
- The Healthy Homes assessment the tenant had done in May 2025 said that then, the premises did not meet Healthy Homes standards because the heating capacity of the heat pump was very slightly below what is required. It noted that there were unacceptable gaps around windows and the front and back door. It noted blockages in the gutters downpipes and drains preventing them working properly.
- The tenant told the landlord that the premises had failed the Healthy Homes assessment but did not initially give the property manager a copy of the report. After the property managers had a copy, they had more sealing and draught stopping work done in June and the gutters cleared in August.
- I find it proved on balance that the premises did not meet those Healthy Homes standards. That breached the landlord’s obligation under s.45(1)(bb). It also constituted an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 can be awarded.
- Because the landlord had a Healthy Homes assessment done in November 2024, I do not find that the breach was intentional and no award of exemplary damages should be made. I also find that the landlord was reasonably responsive to repair issues when raised by the tenant, if not always effectively.
- It is however the case that the landlord breached its obligations and that breach caused the tenant loss in terms of the increased cost and reduced comfort of living in the home. The tenant says that leaves would blow in under the front door and that the heat pump had to run constantly because the temperature would drop immediately otherwise. She says the leaks from overflowing gutters, kept recurring and causing water ingress to the premises. Those consequences are consistent with the findings of the Healthy Homes assessment.
- The tenant should be compensated for those impacts of the landlord’s breach, which I fix at two week’s rent.
- I have considered whether, by failing to give the landlord a copy of the assessment, the tenant may have breached her obligation to mitigate the claimed losses.
- The fundamental point though is that the tenant was required to pay for her own assessment to support her concern that her use and enjoyment of the premises was being impacted by the premises not complying with HH standards. Having told the landlord she had the report and its findings, gave the landlord opportunity to check itself.
- The tenant should be compensated for the cost of the report, which was a foreseeable loss caused by the landlord’s breach. Landlord’s claims Cleaning
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant was given additional time to do more cleaning at the premises after the tenancy had ended. For the most part, the premises were by then left in reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- The landlord claims only part for the cleaning costs as shown on the quote provided. The quote doesn’t separate out the costs for each part of the cleaning work.
- The tenant accepts that the landlord should be compensated for the cost of cleaning and deodorising the carpets as she had a dog at the premises. I assess $250.00 plus GST as fair compensation for that work.
- The tenant says that the rubbish in the garage which the cleaners removed, was there when she arrived. I accept that evidence and the property managers do not say otherwise.
- Photographs provided both by the tenant and by the cleaners show that while the tenant had cleaned the rangehood, she had not been able to remove the residues in the filter which meant it was not left reasonably clean. I assess $50.00 plus GST as fair compensation for the landlord getting the cleaners to clean the filters.
Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?
- A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- The tenant accepts that some damage to the walls in the downstairs of the premises happened during the tenancy. She says the damage was repaired but she could not get a paint match and accepts that she should compensate the landlord for the cost of the repaint. She does not accept responsibility for other damage, particularly un the upstairs area, which she says was there when the tenancy began.
- The landlord’s evidence is that the repair/ paint invoice provided is only for the cost of fixing the damage the tenant accepts is her responsibility. That cannot be verified by looking at the invoice for the other repair work the property manager says was done by the same contractor.
- The property managers evidence about that is clear and the compensation claimed, in terms of the invoice provided, is reasonable to repair the damage the tenant accepts is her. Compensation for the amount of that invoice is awarded.
- Each party had had claims upheld and no order for reimbursement of the filing fees is made.