What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298373 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5298373?

Call Out Fee - Property Access: $109.83 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $875.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298373?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298373?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12303367-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298373 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5298373?

Call Out Fee - Property Access: $109.83 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $875.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298373?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298373?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12303367-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5298373 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298373 — net $485.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$875.81		3. The landlord’s application seeks water rates arrears and the cost of gaining entry to the property after-hours after [The tenant/s] accidentally locked her…
Call out fee - property access	$109.83		Call out fee - property access
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		89. Both parties were partially successful in their applications.
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$500.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	89. Both parties were partially successful in their applications.
Total award	$1,013.64	$528.00
Net award	$485.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$485.64

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298373 — net $485.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$875.81		3. The landlord’s application seeks water rates arrears and the cost of gaining entry to the property after-hours after [The tenant/s] accidentally locked her…
Call out fee - property access	$109.83		Call out fee - property access
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		89. Both parties were partially successful in their applications.
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$500.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	89. Both parties were partially successful in their applications.
Total award	$1,013.64	$528.00
Net award	$485.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$485.64

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The periodic tenancy began on 12 May 2024, and it is a current tenancy.
The tenant’s application raises issues relating to maintenance and breach of quiet enjoyment.
The landlord’s application seeks water rates arrears and the cost of gaining entry to the property after-hours after [The tenant/s] accidentally locked her keys inside the house.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 18 August 2025. Ms Loane, Ms Morunga, and Mr Walsh (representing the landlord) attended the hearing in person. [The tenant/s] attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Tenant application Maintenance
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 1
This is not a guarantee that the property will not have defects or problems. It is an obligation on landlords to carry out repairs within a reasonable time of a problem being brought to their attention. 2
Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 for this unlawful act.
The other type of monetary damages that the Tribunal can award is compensation.
[The tenant/s] raised the following issues: a. Stove element. b. Garage door remote. c. Water filtration. d. Tree / hedge maintenance and green waste. e. Gate. Stove element
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The front left element on the stove stopped working. 1 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431 b. She informed Ms Morunga about this during an inspection on 20 March 2025. c. An electrician came to the property without notice on 26 June. The electrician inspected the stove and confirmed that the element was not working. d. On 1 July Ms Morunga asked her to send a photo of the stovetop, which she did. e. The element was eventually repaired in mid-August.
Ms Morunga agreed that [The tenant/s] told her about the element on 20 March. She said that the stove was still under warranty, which slowed down the repair process.
The obligation on landlords is to address maintenance issues within a “reasonable” time, and consideration of what is reasonable can properly take into account: a. The seriousness / significance of the maintenance issue. In this instance one of the four elements stopped working, but the stove was working in all other respects. b. The location of the property / availability of tradespeople / any other specific factors. I acknowledge that it is often difficult to find tradespeople in the [Event location suppressed], and I also accept Ms Morunga’s statement that this was a warranty claim which slowed down the process somewhat.
However, even having regard to those considerations, I agree with [The tenant/s] argument that nearly five months was too long to wait for this repair. Garage door remote
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The garage door remote stopped working. b. She raised the issue with a technician from [the electrician] (an electrician) when he was at the property on other matters on 5 March 2025. The technician took a photo of the remote and said that he would follow it up. c. She mentioned the issue to Ms Morunga at the 20 March inspection. Ms Morunga asked whether she had changed the batteries and she confirmed that she had. d. On 13 April she logged a maintenance request via the property manager’s software system “Tapi”. e. She mentioned the issue again in an email to Ms Loane on 16 June. f. She raised the issue again with Ms Morunga during an inspection on 18 June.
As at the date of hearing (18 August) the garage door has not been replaced. Ms Loane says that an electrician is due to return to the property soon to confirm the make and model of the garage door system and the remote will be replaced soon.
Again, I think this is an unacceptably long delay. The problem is not critical, but it is frustrating for the tenant. It is difficult to understand why the electrician needs to return to the property again when they should have obtained all of the necessary information when they were there on 5 March. Water filtration
The property is on a reticulated water supply, but the house has additional filters at the point of entry (two filters mounted on the exterior of the house) and an undersink filter in the kitchen.
[The tenant/s] said that none of the filters have been inspected or replaced during her tenancy she has “noticed that the drinking water has a consistently unpleasant taste”. [The tenant/s] also sought clarification regarding who is responsible for changing the filters.
In my view the landlord is responsible for maintenance of the filtration system attached to the outside of the house.
At the hearing Ms Loane said that she would make arrangements for the filters to be checked and changed (if necessary) on a regular schedule. I agree that is appropriate. Given that the mains water supply is clean potable water, the filters should not need to be changed frequently, unless they are very fine.
Tenants are generally responsible for changing small water filters in the house. If [The tenant/s] is not comfortable doing that herself, she may ask Ray White to include it with the other filter check / replacement, but Ray White may require her to pay the cost of that part of the job. Trees / hedges / green waste
The tenant is responsible for maintaining the lawns and gardens per the terms of the tenancy agreement.
This does not include hedges and larger trees, which are the landlord’s responsibility.
[The tenant/s] concern was that the hedges were not being trimmed regularly. She also wanted to know what to do with the green waste that she was generating with her gardening work.
Ms Loane acknowledged that there was a long delay with regards to the hedge trimming work, due to being unable find a contractor. Ms Loane said that now a contractor has been found, she will suggest to the owners that the contractor returns on a regular schedule to maintain the hedges. I agree that this is a sensible plan.
Ms Loane said that [The tenant/s] can pile up any green waste in a corner of the section. Gate
At the beginning of the tenancy there was a small wooden gate on one side of the house, attached to a retaining wall. It was a basic gate, no more than 1m high.
The bottom of that gate was rotting out, so the landlord arranged for their handyman, [Property Maintenance company], to replace the gate.
[Property Maintenance company] replaced the gate with a much taller, 1.7m gate. The date that this work was done is unclear.
[The tenant/s] said that [handyman] ([Property Maintenance company]) commented to her that the (new) gate was poorly constructed and that there was a risk that the gate could “give way” if one of her children ran into it.
I understand that [handyman] built the gate (or at least installed it) so his comments about its inadequacy are puzzling. However, [The tenant/s] gave clear and detailed oral evidence about this.
Ray White was not aware that [The tenant/s] had concerns about the new gate – they understood that her concerns were about the old gate, and they thought that the problem was solved by [Property Maintenance company]’s work.
It is reasonable to allow Ray White some time to investigate this with [Property Maintenance company], and perhaps to view the new gate themselves. Damages
I have made findings that the landlord did not meet its maintenance obligation in respect of the stove element and the garage door remote. Those issues were not remedied within a reasonable timeframe. The delays caused some loss of amenity for the tenant, and it is appropriate to award some compensation.
I have confirmed that the landlord is responsible for the upkeep of the hedges and large trees, and the water filters attached to the exterior of the house. The landlord’s undertaking to regularly maintain those things going forward is an appropriate way to address those issues.
This is not an instance of a landlord wilfully ignoring their obligation to maintain the premises, and I will not make an award of exemplary damages.
The proven breaches are relatively minor, but there are several of them, and the delays were unnecessary and frustrating for [The tenant/s].
Having regard to these factors I will award compensation of $500.00. Tenancy agreement issues
[The tenant/s] raised a concern about “errors” in the written tenancy agreement.
Perhaps the main concern under this heading was that [The tenant/s] stepfather was named as a guarantor in the agreement. [The tenant/s] stepfather was a guarantor of her previous tenancy but not this one.
Having reviewed the concluded agreement I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] stepfather is named as an emergency contact only and not a guarantor.
Some of the information in the written agreement is now out of date, such as the tenant’s phone number and the Ray White staff member responsible for managing the tenancy, but this is completely normal, and it is not necessary to amend or re-issue the tenancy agreement as this type of information changes over time.
It is not necessary to make orders in respect of the issues that [The tenant/s] raised under this heading. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Landlords must not cause or permit an unreasonable interference with tenant’s peace, comfort, and privacy. 3
[The tenant/s] raised several issues that potentially fall under this heading, both general and specific.
[The tenant/s] general concerns relate to an alleged lack of professionalism and accuracy by Ray White which, [The tenant/s] said, caused her unnecessary stress.
I have reviewed the detailed written submissions provided by [The tenant/s] and by Ray White. It is clear that [The tenant/s] is a “details person” who seeks and appreciates clarity. Tenancies are complex arrangements, a legal relationship but also an actual relationship involving human beings in the world. Some murkiness can be prevented with clear and accurate communication between 3 Section 38(2) RTA landlord and tenants. Some amount of murkiness (such as there being no clear dividing line between a shrub / bush and a tree) is unavoidable.
Looking at the communications between [The tenant/s] and Ray White I see that [The tenant/s] raised many issues and concerns, all of which genuinely related to the tenancy. Ray White responded to most of those concerns and their written communication was always relevant, factual, and respectful.
The standard required of landlords cannot be perfection, and the obligation to not interfere with the reasonable peace comfort and privacy of tenants isn’t a guarantee that the tenant will never suffer stress or anxiety due to some action or comment by the landlord.
In terms of [The tenant/s] overall concern, I think that it would be unjust to characterise Ray White’s management of the tenancy as unprofessional or negligent.
The specific issues that [The tenant/s] raised under this heading were: a. Tradespeople coming to the property without notice. b. A comment made when [The tenant/s] was in the Ray White office. c. The way that Ms Morunga carried out a re-inspection following a breach notice (in respect of stains on the carpet).
[The tenant/s] identified at least two occasions when tradespeople appointed by Ray White sought permission to come to property, or actually arrived at the property, without giving the requisite 24 hours’ notice.
Ms Loane said that they instruct their tradespeople to give notice, but they have no control over whether this actually happens.
I agree that it is good practice for tradespeople to give notice in advance of when they intend to come to the premises. If the landlord (or their agent) give notice at least 24 hours in advance, they have the legal right to enter the premises for the purpose of carrying out maintenance or repairs. 4
However, the landlord (or their agent) can also enter the premises at any time with the consent of the tenant, freely given at the time of entry. 5
Therefore, it was not unlawful for the tradespeople to ask for consent to enter on less than 24 hours’ notice. [The tenant/s] was also free to refuse.
Relying on consent, and contacting tenants on short notice, is a less than ideal approach. No doubt Ray White will be reminding their contractors to give tenants as much advance notice as possible when they need to go to a property to do work. 4 Section 48(2)(d) RTA 5 Section 48(1)(a) RTA
[The tenant/s] said that Ms Laone and a receptionist at Ray White’s office made a comment relating to [The tenant/s] child when she was in Ray White’s office to talk to Ms Loane about water rates and other matters.
Ms Loane recalled the day that [The tenant/s] came to the office. She did not specifically deny the alleged comment. Ms Loane said that [The tenant/s] was difficult to deal with, and she ultimately asked her to leave the office.
Obviously, landlords should be careful about making any sort of personal comments to their tenants, even if they are intended to be light-hearted. However, the Tenancy Tribunal is not a court of manners. A single “off” comment, without evidence of a pattern of inappropriate behaviour / comments, does not meet the legal threshold of an unreasonable interference with the peace comfort and privacy of the tenant. 6
Ms Morunga carried out a property inspection on 20 June 2025. The same day, she issued a breach notice to [The tenant/s] about stains on the carpet.
On 1 July, [The tenant/s] sent Ray White a message disputing the breach notice and raising other issues.
On 4 July, Ms Morunga returned to the property to carry out a re-inspection. [The tenant/s] said that during the re-inspection Ms Morunga did not inspect the carpet but attempted to engage her in conversation about other issues and made comments such as “well you don’t have to agree with it but you still need to talk about it”.
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The breach notice was unjustified and retaliatory. b. Ms Morunga conducted the “re-inspection” in an inappropriate manner.
Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy. 7 Different people can hold genuinely different views about what amounts to “reasonably clean”. I accept that [The tenant/s] disagreed with Ray White’s assessment that the carpets were not reasonably clean. She was entitled to hold that view. However, I also accept that Ms Morunga genuinely held a different view.
Landlords have a legal right to enter the premises to carry out a re-inspection after the expiry of a breach notice, provided that they give at least 48 hours’ notice, which the landlord did in this instance. 8 6 Smith v Floris TT Auckland 1404/93 9 March 1994 7 Section 40(1)(c) RTA 8 Section 48(2)(c) RTA
I agree with [The tenant/s] view that a re-inspection has a specific and narrow purpose, and that it should not used as a vehicle for a general inspection or a meeting with the tenant about unrelated issues.
However, I do not agree that Ms Morunga’s conduct in this instance amounted to an unlawful interference with [The tenant/s] peace, comfort, and privacy. Ms Morunga’s attempts to discuss / sort out other matters during that visit were at worst unwise, or ill-advised, but not at the threshold of unlawful.
In summary, my finding is that there is no basis for an award of exemplary damages or compensation under this heading. Landlord application Water
The claim seeks water rates arrears.
[The tenant/s] has paid $15 per week towards water since the beginning of the tenancy.
The water supplier, Doubtless Bay Water Supply (DBWS), issues invoices every two months. DBWS’s invoices include a “network fee” and a charge for water use per cubic metre, based on meter readings.
Ideally, Ray White should have: a. Invoiced [The tenant/s] for water use bi-monthly, as soon as possible after the DBWS invoice came out. b. Generated its own invoice for: i. Water used during the two-month period, based on the DBWS meter readings but excluding the network fee (which the landlord pays 9 ). ii. Less the total of the $15/wk payments that [The tenant/s] made during that period.
Ray White’s invoices did not quite achieve that ideal, in that: a. Some invoices were missed in the early part of the tenancy. b. Some of [The tenant/s] water payments were allocated to the disputed fee for entering the premises to retrieve [The tenant/s] keys (discussed below). c. Ray White’s invoices include an “other amounts still owing” figure that is not broken down or detailed, and is quite confusing.
I understand why [The tenant/s] was confused and frustrated by the water invoicing. 9 Section 39(1)(a) RTA
Tenants are liable for the cost of water that they use. 10
The District Court has held that landlords must issue water rates invoices to the tenant as they come through from the supplier, so that the tenant may budget and pay for water in regular intervals rather than a large lump sum. 11
Ray White has proven that there are water rates arrears. The total cost of water use from the beginning of the tenancy to 31 July 2025 (the most recent DBWS invoice) was $1,650.81. The total of [The tenant/s] weekly payments from the beginning of the tenancy to 31 July 2025 is $775.00. The balance owed (to 31 July 2025) is $875.81
Although Ray White’s invoicing was imperfect in the ways described above, the information that they provided was clear enough to show that the $15 per week that [The tenant/s] was paying was insufficient to cover her actual water use. [The tenant/s] actual water use (consumption) was stated in the Ray White invoices and DBWS invoices that were sent to her. [The tenant/s] has not increased the weekly payment or made any other payments towards water during her tenancy. This is not an instance, as in Woollams v Simpson, where the landlord failed to issue invoices at all during the tenancy and then expected the tenant to pay a large lump sum at the end. The District Court intervened in those circumstances and relieved the tenant from liability for a large proportion of the water rates. In this instance Ray White’s administration was not perfect, but not a level where any reduction of the outstanding amounts is justified.
The amount of outstanding water rates arrears is proven. Fee for entering the premises after hours
Early in the tenancy, [The tenant/s] accidentally locked her keys inside the house. This happened outside of normal business hours. She contacted Tracie, who was her property manager at Ray White at the time.
[The tenant/s] said that: a. Tracie told her that she would collect the spare key and come and let her in. b. Tracie then contacted her and said that they had given the key to a contractor who was doing work at the property earlier that day. Tracie told her that she ([The tenant/s]) could drive to [Event location suppressed] and pick up the key from the contractor. [The tenant/s] said that she was willing to do this. 10 Section 39(4)(c) RTA 11 Woollams v Simpson DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583 16 March 2006 c. Tracie then told her that the contractor was at a pub nearby and that he was willing to come to the property in about half an hour. d. [The tenant/s] waited. The contractor ([contractor]) arrived. He did not have a key with him, but he removed a glass pane in the ranchslider to give access to retrieve the keys, then reinstated the glass. e. [The contractor] issued an invoice for $219.65 for this work.
Ray White holds [The tenant/s] liable for this cost on the grounds that it was incurred because [The tenant/s] locked her keys inside the house, and it is not a cost that should fall to the landlord.
[The tenant/s] disputes the cost on the grounds that she understood that the contractor would arrive with the spare key and let her in and there would be no cost. She said that she was prepared to drive to Kaitaia to collect the key. [The tenant/s] said that if she is required to pay a fee, the amount charged is not justified. She said that the contractor was on site for no more than 5 minutes.
The Tribunal is required to determine disputes between landlords and tenants “according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case”. 12
The “general principles of the law” dictates that the cost was a direct and reasonably foreseeable consequence of [The tenant/s] unintentional but careless action of locking her keys inside the house and therefore she is liable for the cost. However, I do not think that such an outcome would completely align with the substantial merits and justice in this instance. [The tenant/s] reasonably understood that Tracie was arranging a solution that would not involve any cost. She was not made aware of the possibility of a cost until after the job was done. [The contractor]’s invoice does not give any breakdown of the $219.65 charged. Although it was technically an “after hours job”, it was more like a quick favour for the property manager involving minimal inconvenience for [the contractor], and perhaps this should be reflected in the cost.
In the circumstances my finding is that [The tenant/s] is liable for half of the invoiced amount.
For clarity I will note that none of [The tenant/s] water payments can be allocated to this cost because: a. The payments were specifically towards water; and b. [The tenant/s] did not agree that they could be allocated to this disputed cost; and 12 Section 85(2) RTA c. In any event I have allocated all of [The tenant/s] water payments to water, per the calculation above. Filing fee, name suppression
Both parties were partially successful in their applications. I will award the filing fee to both parties. 13
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] was “substantially succeeded in the proceedings” 14 and I will grant name suppression on that basis.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298373 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298373 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions