What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5296580 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (5833960-001) to [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5296580?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296580?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12676499-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5296580 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (5833960-001) to [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5296580?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296580?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12676499-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Rahui Road, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5296580 — Mould & damp

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (5833960-001) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] the amount of $2,000.00 immediately, being compensation for loss of amenity.
The tenant’s claims relating to retaliatory notice, failing to maintain, falsified Healthy Homes Assessment Report, rubbish bins, use of garage, breach of quiet enjoyment, and exemplary damages are dismissed.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages in respect of alleged breaches of obligations by the landlord.
The landlord filed an application several days later opposing the tenant’s application. Their application did not raise any claims.
For convenience I will refer to the parties in the singular. Background
The property consists of two separate dwellings on one property. Number 5 is the house at the back of the property and number 5A is at the front. The tenants originally rented the house at the back and then moved to the front house.
It is the front house (number 5A) which relate to this application before me.
The tenancy started on 14 December 2024. It was a fixed term until 13 December 2025. The agreement was converted to a periodic term at the request of the tenants and with the consent of the landlord.
The tenants vacated the property on 17 August 2025. They say that they paid up until 20 August 2025.
In my view the lead issue is the roof leak. Well into the tenancy the house suffered a leak in the roof. The leak, although isolated was persistent and continued even after professional roof repairs had taken place.
The tenant also raises a number of other issues with the property. They also claim that the landlord’s notice to terminate was in retaliation to the filing of this application with the Tribunal.
The landlord cross applied merely opposing the tenant’s claims. They did not raise any claims as part of their application. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decide are these: • Did the landlord commit any unlawful acts? If so, should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? • Was the landlord’s notice to terminate retaliatory? • Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? • Has the tenant suffered a loss of amenity in respect of their use of the premises? Legal principles
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is substantially a tenant application, that means that it is for the tenant to establish their respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence received during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and documentary evidence provided, but the parties should know it has all been carefully considered.
The tenant also provided a number of helpful packs of documents during the hearing. The packs were numbered from 1 to 12 and have all been considered in detail. Relevant law
Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out what is required to be contained in a tenancy agreement. Section 13(1CA) requires a landlord to sign a statement that on, or after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord with comply with the HHS, and a statement that includes the information prescribed by regulations made under section 138B(5) RTA – information relating to the HHS.
Section 38 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities in respect of quiet enjoyment.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHSA failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act in each case – section 13A(1F) RTA and section 45(1A) RTA.
Section 48 RTA sets out a landlord’s right of entry.
Section 54 RTA sets out the provisions in respect of a retaliatory notice.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
Section 109 RTA sets out what must be established before the Tribunal can award exemplary damages. Other legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
The tenant’s compensation claims are for the loss of use of and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy (due to the water ingress and the repairs carried out.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: a. The intention of the person; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a)The intention of the person; (b)The effect of the unlawful act; (c)The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d)The public interest. Discussion
First I will address the tenant’s application as it was the first application filed. Bond refund
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
In the absence of an application against the bond the proceeds must be returned to the tenants. Was the landlord’s notice to end the tenancy dated 15 July 2025 in retaliation to the tenant’s application to the Tribunal?
On 15 July 2025 the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 26 August 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
The tenants were living at the back property (number 5) and the landlord was living at the front property (number 5A).
On 15 July 2025 the landlord served a termination notice on the tenants. This was 23 days after the tenants lodged their application with the tenancy tribunal on 22 June 2025.
The landlord sought termination under s 51(2)(a) RTA for a family member to move into the property. The term was originally fixed for 12 months from 14 December 2024 to 13 December 2025. On 9 June 2025 the tenants requested to convert the fixed term to that of a periodic term. The tenants say that this was for their protection based on the issues with the house. The landlord agreed to convert the fixed term to a periodic term.
On 18 October 2024 while the tenants were living at the back property they sent the landlord a text advising that they were looking at moving. The landlord responded by stating that she was also looking at moving to Takapuna and whether the tenants may be interested in moving to the front house.
The tenants looked at the house and decided to take it. They say they also turned down a different property via a property manager. The parties then signed a new Tenancy Agreement for number 5a (the front house).
The tenants says that the basis for the notice to terminate in false. That say that the arrangements for a family member to move in could not have been long planned. The tenants say that we must look at the whole picture.
The landlord says that this is not a valid claim and strongly denies any suggestion that the notice was retaliatory.
The landlord says that she is not obligated to disclose family reasons for the notice. The landlord says that she purchased both properties in 2022 with the intention of her and her parents living close by. The landlord says that her father passed away in 2022.
The landlord says that in Chinese culture after a spouse passes away the remaining partner must stay there for a further year. Because her mother could not come to New Zealand the landlord decided to rent out the back house. In June/July 2024 the landlord was discussing with her mother about her long-term plans. Her mother agreed to move to New Zealand. She had back issues and organised an operation on her back in November 2024.
After organising the surgery she had to go on a waiting list. In October 2024 the landlord went to China to check on her mother. The landlord then returned to New Zealand that same month. The hospital in China advised the landlord that the operation could not take place until 10 March 2025. This went ahead as planned. The surgeon told the landlord that it would be 6 to 9 months before she could travel.
The landlord says that she made the decision to move to Takapuna because her partner’s business is based there and also because she was unsure how long it would be before her mother could travel to New Zealand. They decided to rent a place closer to Takapuna. She also states that the tenants contacted her and advised that they required a bigger place for their family.
The landlord lodged a grandparent visitor visa with Immigration New Zealand on 24 August 2025. A decision is yet to be made in respect of this application as at the hearing date. The landlord now lives in Takapuna and the front house (5a) is vacant and is currently undergoing some modifications in expectation of her mother’s arrival.
The tenant responds by stating that the landlord should have communicated better by stating at the beginning that there was a chance that her mother may be moving to New Zealand. The tenants stressed that the move has taken a huge toll on them.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
The tenants allege that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory, as it was served 23 days after the tenants lodged an application with the Tenancy Tribunal. Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a notice may be deemed retaliatory if, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising their rights under the Act.
In this case, the landlord has provided evidence that the notice was given because their mother is moving from China to New Zealand and requires the property for her own use. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s primary motivation was in response to the tenants’ application to the Tribunal. The timing of the notice alone is not sufficient to establish that it was retaliatory, particularly where there is a credible and independent reason for the termination.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the notice was retaliatory, and the tenants’ claim is dismissed. Failure to maintain Did the landlord breach their obligations by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Roof leak
The tenants say that they first discovered the roof was leaking on 4 April 2025. They discovered that the roof was leaking around the fireplace chimney. They notified the landlord by text message that following morning and that she would check it the following day during the planned routine inspection.
The landlord came to the house the following day. The landlord followed up with a text message stating that she would arrange a builder to check the outside of the chimney. The tenant says no one came.
On 16 April 2025 the tenant followed up with the landlord as to whether anyone was coming. A builder then turned up on 16 April 2025 to inspect the roof. He came to the house and put sealant around the chimney area of the roof.
The landlord strongly disagrees that she failed to maintain the roof. She says that she took all necessary action to maintain the roof. She says that they contacted the builder straight away to look at the roof but had to wait for him based on his availability. When the tenant followed up on 16 April 2025 the landlord contacted the builder again and he attended that same day. She says that after his repair on 16 April the tenant reported that there were no further leaks.
The landlord tried contacting several roofing companies. Some of the roofing companies stated that they would require scaffolding due to the height of the roof. She then found Metroscaff who confirmed that they could do the scaffolding job. They attended on 10 June 2025 to undertake a measure up. She was also referred to Shield Roofing Company who undertook the repairs on 30 June 2025. Due to continued bad weather and staff sickness the scaffolding was not set up until 19 June 2025. The following day was a public holiday. On 23 June the landlord received a message from the roofers saying that the measurements had been sent to the manufacturer.
On 26 June the landlord was advised that the roofing company was waiting for the weather to settle down before starting the job.
The roof leak returned on or about 17 July 2025. The tenants say that when they arrived home they could see water running down the same wall.
The tenant says that they first reported the leak on 4 April 2025 and claim that it took the landlord so long because she did not want to go to the expense of repairing the roof.
The tenant added that the leak continued up until the day they moved out.
The tenants also referred to photographs during the hearing of the flooring skirting damage which suggests that the leaking down the wall had been an issue prior to them moving in.
The tenants say that the leaks happened prior to them moving in and that the sealant had covered it up.
The tenants emailed the landlord on 9 June 2025 expressing their concerns in respect of the ongoing roof leak. I have also considered the numerous text messages between the parties in respect of the issues raised as recorded in the various document packs.
The landlord says that her partner undertook some DYI repair work and that the photos show damaged skirting and paint work where the fireplace used to be. The landlord says that she also did some herself and painted over where the fireplace used to be.
The landlord said that the fireplace was removed in October 2024, well before the tenants moved to the front house. The landlord says that there were bricks against the wall. The landlord says that when the tenants looked at the property there was clearly no fireplace there. Discussion
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the property by not repairing a roof leak in a timely manner. Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord is required to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord promptly contacted a builder to assess and repair the leaks as soon as she became aware of the issue. The delay in completing the repairs was due to the builder’s availability, adverse weather conditions, and staff sickness, all of which were outside the landlord’s control. I am satisfied that the landlord took all reasonable steps to address the leak as soon as practicable.
Accordingly, I find that the landlord has not breached her obligations under the Act, and the tenant’s claim has not been established. Witness for the landlord:
A witness for the landlord provided viva voce evidence during the hearing. The witness is a qualified builder and states that he is the builder involved in the repairs of the address of 5A Rahui Road.
The witness says that in April 2025 there was a house leak. The witness says that there was a leak around the old chimney. He says that the landlord called him to attend to this. He was asked to undertake an inspection and check for any leaks in the property. He says that he found no obvious leaks. He says that while there were no obvious leaks there were areas where there could be potential leaks.
The witness says that on 22 May 2025 he attended the house on one occasion and had to get a ladder to inspect the roof. He then sealed parts of the roof around the chimney. He also went inside the roof but because it was not raining he didn’t find anything. The witness says the only repairs he undertook at 5A Rahui Road related to the leaks around the chimney. He maintained that he did not undertake any other repairs on the property.
During the hearing the landlord asked the witness about further leaks after the repairs around the chimney. The landlord had a roofing company attend on 10 June 2025 to inspect the roof from the roadside. He then came back the following day with a drone and took photos of the roof. The roofer stated that they have an old roof. They then came back on or about 29 and 30 June 2025 and replaced the ridge of the roof. They also removed the chimney.
The tenant asked the witness several questions in respect of what he did. She then referred him to a report which he had written on 23 May 2025. Front door gaps
The tenant says that the front door had large gaps which caused the place to be cold and draughty. The downstairs bedrooms are the ones their children occupied. The tenant says that they did not notify the landlord of the front door issue. The tenant says that the landlord should have been aware of all these issues given that she used to live there. The tenants moved their son away from the bedroom which was close to the front door. The tenants say that the issue of the front door should have been repaired by the landlord prior to the tenants moving in
The landlord says that they were never told about the door until 17 August when they undertook the exit inspection. The tenant says that the landlord should have known as she used to live there. Gaps in downstairs bedroom doors
The tenants provided a video during the hearing of the downstairs bedroom showing the curtain moving as a result of a draught. The tenants say that both downstairs rooms had draught issues. The tenants confirmed that they did not bring these issues to the attention of the landlord.
The landlord says that she was never told about these issues. She says that she does not know what she does not know.
The landlord says that there was a routine inspection on 5 April 2025 and nothing was mentioned at the time. The tenants say that the weather was not so cold and was not at all noticeable in the bedrooms. As soon as winter came is when the draughts became apparent. Downpipe next to water tank
The tenant says that the downpipe from the guttering (next to the water tank) does not drain and as a result made the area very wet and caused water to go under the house. They say it may explain mould in their son’s bedroom.
The landlord says that the downpipe has been that way since they owned the property. They did notice a hole at the top of the pipe and had a plumber fix the hole. She says that the plumber attended after the tenants moved out.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
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.
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains 2 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...” Discussion:
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the property by not addressing large gaps in the front door, which caused the premises to be cold and draughty, particularly affecting the downstairs bedrooms occupied by the tenant’s children.
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord is required to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. However, the landlord’s 2 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. Footnotes not included obligation to repair is generally triggered by notification from the tenant of any defects or maintenance issues.
In this case, the tenant acknowledges that they did not notify the landlord of the issues with the doors during the tenancy. While the tenant submits that the landlord should have been aware of the issue because she previously lived at the property, there is no evidence that the landlord had actual knowledge of the draught or that the issue was apparent during routine inspections.
I have not received any other professional reports confirming excessive gaps or water ingress or drainage issues.
In the circumstances and given the evidence, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove that the landlord did not act in a reasonable or timely manner in responding to the tenant’s notifications, once received and according to the availability of tradespeople.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached her obligations under the Act, and the tenant’s claim has not been established. Did the landlord provide a genuine Healthy Homes assessment report from a qualified provider?
The tenant claims that the report prepared by DB Home Service Limited are not duly authorised HH assessors. The tenant suggests that based on the properties of the document that the landlord has prepared this document herself.
The landlord says that the company used is certified to conduct Healthy Home assessments. The landlord has used this company prior to this in 2023. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the company is not associated with her. The landlord says that she was referred to this company by a previous rental agent. The company is located in Auckland. The fee for the HHS assessment was $172.50. This was paid on 2 September 2025.
The tenant challenges the authenticity of the landlord’s Healthy Homes assessment report and submits that it should not be relied upon. However, the report has been provided by a qualified assessor and there is no credible evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the report is not genuine or that it has been falsified.
In the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the Healthy Homes assessment report is a genuine document and may be relied upon in determining compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim has not been established.

Did the landlord fail to install a ground moisture barrier as required?

The tenants say that the house is raised and that there is no moisture barrier to protect the damp from rising up. The tenants say that it is very damp and cold and can smell damp when one goes downstairs.
The tenants say that if the sub floor is enclosed more than 50% then a moisture barrier is required. There was mould present in their son’s bedroom and on some clothes.
The landlord says that there is a large deck around the house. She had insulation installed by Brighter Insulation under the house on 13 April 2023 and was advised that the insulation installed meets all the requirements.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes Standards by failing to install a moisture barrier under the house, resulting in a damp and cold environment and the presence of mould in their son’s bedroom.
The tenants submit that the subfloor is enclosed by more than 50%, and therefore a moisture barrier is required. However, the landlord has provided evidence that insulation was installed under the house by Brighter Insulation on 13 April 2023, and that the insulation meets all relevant requirements.
There is no independent evidence before the Tribunal to establish that the subfloor is sufficiently enclosed to require a moisture barrier under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, or that the landlord has failed to comply with her obligations.
The presence of dampness and mould, while concerning, is not in itself determinative of a breach if the landlord has otherwise complied with the Healthy Homes Standards.
On the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to the requirement for a moisture barrier.
Accordingly, the tenants’ claim in respect of this has not been established. Did the landlord fail to provide a signed Healthy Homes Compliance Statement with the Tenancy Agreement?
The tenants claim that the landlord did not provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement as part of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord says that it is the first time she has prepared a tenancy agreement. The tenant confirmed that she did not request a copy of the HH compliance statement.
A landlord is required to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement as part of the Tenancy Agreement.
Under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and section 13A(1A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, landlords must include a Healthy Homes compliance statement in any new, varied, or renewed tenancy agreement. This statement must set out the current level of compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards for the property.
The compliance statement is a legal requirement and must be provided at the start of every new or renewed tenancy (including variations that amount to a renewal). Failure to provide a compliance statement is a breach of the landlord’s obligations under the Act.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement as part of the tenancy agreement, as required by section 13A(1A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
The landlord acknowledges that this was her first time preparing a tenancy agreement and that a compliance statement was not included. While the tenant did not request a copy of the compliance statement, the obligation to provide it rests with the landlord and is not dependent on a request from the tenant.
Failure to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement is a breach of the landlord’s obligations under the Act.
However, as there is no evidence of any loss or specific detriment to the tenant arising from this omission, I make no order for compensation but remind the landlord of her ongoing obligation to comply with all statutory requirements in future tenancy agreements. Was the landlord obligated to provide the tenants with adequately sized rubbish bins?
The tenants say that they had to share a recycling bin with the landlord and that the rubbish bin was not big enough. The landlord says that she requested an extra recycling bin back in 2022 from the council. The council did not provide an extra bin for the second house. The tenant says that when they first moved into the house at the back the property manager told them that one would be ordered. The tenant also say that if they had had their own recycling bin then the rubbish bin would not have been such as issue.
There is no specific requirement in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) that obliges a landlord to provide a rubbish bin of a particular size or to supply a rubbish bin at all, unless it is included as a chattel in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s general obligations under section 45 of the RTA are to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and to comply with all relevant health and safety requirements. If local council regulations require a rubbish bin to be provided for the property, the landlord must comply with those regulations.
Otherwise, the size and provision of rubbish bins is typically a matter for agreement between the landlord and tenant or is determined by local council services. If the tenancy agreement is silent on this issue, and there is no local requirement, the landlord is not specifically responsible for providing a "big enough" rubbish bin.
The tenant’s claim in respect of rubbish bins has not been established. Did the landlord breach their obligations by failing to remove all belongings from the garage?
The tenants say that the day they moved into the house the landlord had left belongings behind. There were chairs, cutlery, shelves and various other bits and pieces. The landlord had also left a cat behind.
The landlord told the tenants that she did not have enough time to remove everything and that she would return in a few days to collect. The tenants stated that the landlord returned and removed a few items at a time. The garage was a single /double garage.
The tenants provided a photograph of what appears to be a shelving unit on the wall. The tenant says that there were other items in the garage but did not take photographs of these items.
The landlord says that they had a discussion with the tenants. The items left behind on the shelving unit related to when renovations took place. The other items left behind were various gardening tools which the tenants could use to maintain the garden. The paint was also left behind for any touch up work required. The landlord said they had the consent of the tenants to leave these items behind.
The landlord says that cat is a stray cat which they had in a previous property. The landlord says they tried on numerous visits to catch the cat. The landlord says that they finally caught the cat in February.
The tenant says that when they signed the agreement they agreed that the gardening tools would remain.
There is no specific provision in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) that directly addresses a landlord’s liability for failing to remove all personal belongings from the garage by the start of a new tenancy. However, the general obligations under section 45 of the RTA require the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and to ensure the tenant has quiet enjoyment of the premises.
If the landlord’s belongings left in the garage prevent the tenant from having full use of the premises, or if the premises are not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy state, the landlord may be liable to compensate the tenant for any loss of amenity or inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation would depend on the extent to which the tenant’s use of the premises was affected.
Having carefully considered the evidence provided in support of this claim I find that there has been no breach of landlord obligations in respect of the use of the garage. I also find that the landlord took all reasonable steps to remove the cat from the property. This was also an event largely outside her control.
The claim has not been established. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment including providing the required notice period for inspections?
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 tenant says that the roof leaks went on for 4 months. She says that during this time there were 10 inspections. These inspections consisted of the builder making a number of visits.
The tenant says that after the roof had been repaired on 30 June the landlord wanted to attend to make sure that the repairs had been done. The tenants say that on one occasion the landlord was visiting the house at the back and knocked on the front door of these tenants asking if she could get something from the garage.
On 10 June the landlord sent the tenants a text message the same day that the scaffolding was to be put up for the roof repair. The tenant also complains that the landlord sent an email on 30 June advising that she would need to enter the property for the purposes of checking the roof repairs. The tenants say that the notice period was not specific enough. The tenants went back and suggested two alternative times. The tenants say that she did not give a time. The tenant requested a specific time for the visit.
The landlord says that she clearly noted in her email that she was giving at least 48 hours’ notice and that she was waiting for a rainy day. The landlord says that it was an urgent situation.
The landlord further says that she is not able to predict exactly when it is going to rain. She says that she cannot control the weather and she cannot control the schedules of trades people.
The tenant claims that the landlord breached their right to quiet enjoyment by arranging multiple inspections for repairs, including several visits by a builder, and by seeking access to the property to check the completion of roof repairs.
The tenant also refers to an occasion when the landlord, while visiting a neighbouring property, knocked on the tenant’s door to request access to the garage, and to an email sent by the landlord advising of her intention to check the roof repairs.
Under section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. However, the evidence shows that the landlord’s visits and communications were for legitimate purposes related to necessary repairs and maintenance, and that appropriate notice was given for entry as required by the Act.
Occasional requests for access to the garage and communication about repairs do not, in themselves, amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. I am not satisfied that the landlord’s actions were unreasonable or amounted to an interference with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim has not been established.

Are the tenants entitled to a partial rent refund?

The tenants seek a rent refund of 30% for the period 4 April 2025 to 20 August. The tenants base the 30% on the basis that they did not have full use of the house during this time due to ongoing maintenance issues.
The landlord responded by saying that these events were outside her control. She says that she tried her best to attend to these maintenance issues but the house is aging.
The landlord further stated that the issues arose as a result of the age of the house and were outside her control, and that she took reasonable steps to address the problems as promptly as possible.
While the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for a rent reduction where there has been a significant loss of amenity or use of the premises, such a reduction must be assessed on the evidence of the extent and impact of the loss.
In this case, while I accept that the tenants experienced some inconvenience, there is insufficient evidence to support a rent reduction of the magnitude sought. Furthermore, the landlord’s prompt and reasonable efforts to address the issues are relevant.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that a 30% rent refund is justified in the circumstances, and the tenants’ claim is declined.
Loss of amenity is a separate concept from damages for actual financial loss. It refers to compensation for the reduction in the tenant’s enjoyment or use of the property (for example, if part of the house was unusable due to repairs or defects).
The Tribunal can award a rent reduction or compensation for this loss, even if no direct financial loss or physical damage is proven.
The key is that there must be sufficient evidence of a significant loss of amenity or use, and the amount awarded should be reasonable and proportionate to the loss suffered.
Although the tenant’s claim for damages is dismissed due to insufficient evidence of actual financial loss, the Tribunal may still consider whether compensation for loss of amenity is appropriate. Loss of amenity refers to a reduction in the tenant’s use or enjoyment of the premises. In this case, while there is no evidence of direct financial loss, I am satisfied that the tenant experienced a loss of amenity during the relevant period, as certain parts of the premises were impacted by the issues with the roof. The Tribunal has the discretion to award compensation for this loss, typically by way of a rent reduction for the affected period.
Accordingly, I award compensation of $2,000.00 to the tenant for loss of amenity, notwithstanding the dismissal of the claim for damages. Landlord application
The landlord filed a cross application on 27 June 2025. The landlord’s application did not raise any claims but merely responded to the claims raised by the tenant.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application is dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The parties have not been wholly or substantially successful with their applications and therefore are not entitled to name suppression. For the same reasons I do not reimburse the filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296580 — Mould & damp at 5 Rahui Road, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296580 — Mould & damp at 5 Rahui Road, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to install a ground moisture barrier as required?

Are the tenants entitled to a partial rent refund?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to install a ground moisture barrier as required?

Are the tenants entitled to a partial rent refund?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions