How much money was awarded in case 5314701?

Compensation: Failing to comply with…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Power Disconnection Fee: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $710.00 awarded to landlord; Re-Painting Window Jambs/Walls: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Replacing Bifold Handle: $205.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5314701?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5314701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12709451-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5314701?

Compensation: Failing to comply with…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Power Disconnection Fee: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $710.00 awarded to landlord; Re-Painting Window Jambs/Walls: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Replacing Bifold Handle: $205.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5314701?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5314701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12709451-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22D Harvest Avenue, Orewa, Orewa 0931 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5314701 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5314701 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s], [The tenant/s] landlord/s],Tammy

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5314701 — net $715.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13/07/2025	$710.00		Rent arrears to 13/07/2025
Repairs: replacing bifold handle	$205.00		Repairs: replacing bifold handle
Repairs: Re-painting window jambs/walls	$150.00		99. As both parties are at fault, I order the tenant to pay $150.00 for the disconnection fee to the landlord.
Power disconnection fee	$150.00		99. As both parties are at fault, I order the tenant to pay $150.00 for the disconnection fee to the landlord.
Compensation: Failing to comply with HHS (heating		$500.00	Failing to comply with HHS (heating
Total award	$1,215.00	$500.00
Net award	$715.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$715.00

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s], [The tenant/s] landlord/s],Tammy Mcleod As Trustees For The Grieve Family Trust $715.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $715.00 (BN-00085006) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s], [The tenant/s] landlord/s],Tammy Mcleod As Trustees For The Grieve Family Trust immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,125.00 (BN-00085006) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 November 2025.

The tenancy was originally for a fixed term from 21 February 2025 until 20 February 2026. However, the tenancy ended early on 31 July 2025 at the request of the tenant.

The premises was on a big section with the landlord also residing within a close proximity to the tenant’s dwelling. In total there were 5 dwellings on the section using 5 separate power meters.

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant claimed for the premises not being compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards(“HHS”), the premises not being provided or maintained in a reasonable state, breach of tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises, compensation for the water used by the landlord, compensation for work done for the landlord and exemplary damages for unlawful entry, and for the bond not being lodged with the Bond Centre in the required time.

The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears and compensation for damages to the bamboo floor, broken bifold door handle, re-painting, and the power disconnection fee.

I deal with the tenant’s application first. Tenant’s claims – HHS

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must comply with the HHS.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

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) RTA.

The tenant said that there was no fixed heater in the house, and that the landlord only provided a portable oil heater resulting in a house that was freezing, damp and mouldy.

The tenant acknowledged that the landlord had offered a dehumidifier which the tenant declined.

The landlord had noted in the tenancy agreement form that the premises already comply with the HHS as required under section 45(1)(bb) RTA as of 17 January 2021. 5314701, 53153243

This is despite the landlord having noted that only a 1.9kW oil heater was provided when the required heating capacity for the main living room was

8kW.

It is difficult to understand why the landlord had marked the premises as being compliant with the HHS heating standard when even in their own calculations it was falling short.

The landlord did ask the tenant to let the landlord know if another heater was required. The landlord seemed to have been relying on the fact that the house was built to code around 2005 together with the house being north facing. However, none of those excuse the landlord for not complying with HHS especially knowing that the required heating capacity was not being met.

As this tenancy began on 21 February 2025, the due date for HHS compliance was 21 June 2025. However, there was no evidence of any attempts to get the premises compliant with HHS by the due date.

As the landlord knew that the HHS heating standard was not being met, I find that the landlord has breached section 45 RTA intentionally. There is public interest in denouncing the lack of HHS compliance.

I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 in exemplary damages.

The tenant also claimed that the house leaked, and that the blinds were all see through. However, there was no evidence any leaks presented by the tenant, no evidence of any dampness, and there is no obligation on the landlords to provide blinds. Therefore, those claims are not granted. Premises was not provided or maintained to a reasonable state

The tenant claimed that there were issues with the dishwasher, kitchen switches and with the power tripping out.

Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.

When the tenant raised issues with the dishwasher, kitchen switches and the power tripping out, the landlord sent a repairman to have a look. The repairman was unable to find any fault as the problem was only intermittent. The landlord ended up swapping out the landlord’s own dishwasher with the tenant’s dishwasher.

The tenant said that the power would often trip itself sometimes even with only the tap running and sometimes with no reason. The tenant said that it was sometimes the dishwasher and sometimes the washing machine that would trip 5314701, 53153244 the power. The tenant claimed that it was due to the landlord having done the wiring themselves.

The landlord disputed this and said that the power issue was only mentioned at the end of the tenancy. Further to this, unbeknown to the tenant, the sewerage pump had been blocked due to the users of the tenant’s toilet flushing non- degradable items down the toilet. The landlord had to pay $800.00 to have the pump cleared after the tenant had moved out.

The tenant also claimed that she felt like there were other dwellings using the tenant’s electricity given the high power bills even when her spa pool had been turned off. The landlord said that each dwelling had their own power. There was no evidence presented by the tenant to substantiate her suspicion.

I do not find that the tenant has proven that the landlord has failed to provide or maintain the premises to a reasonable standard.

Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises

The tenant claimed that the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises.

A landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. Contravening this in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is an unlawful act with $3,000.00 maximum exemplary damages awardable.

The tenant’s complaints were for constant work that had taken place for her premises. A container was modified during the tenancy to provide extra storage for the tenant and to move the washing machine from the shed to the new container. The tenant described that this involved lots of noise from 6:30 am to 7:00 pm comprising of banging, sawing, welding and metal cutting for weeks.

The tenant was a painter and the tenant also worked on this by painting the interior of the container, rust proofing and water blasting the exterior.

Further to this container work, the tenant’s complaints were also for the landlord having to constantly come to have a look at the switches and power points when the tenant complained regarding the dishwasher not working.

The tenant said that there was a time when the landlord had arrived at the premises when the tenant was in the supermarket 5 minutes away from returning home. The landlord and the repairer did not wait outside but had gone into the premises when there were only 2 sick children at home.

The tenant said that she only wanted some privacy at that point. 5314701, 53153245

The landlord explained that the tenant had already been made aware of the repairer coming that day. When the landlord rang the tenant, the tenant said that she was on her way back and that she did not tell them to “not go inside but wait outside”.

There was also a time when the tenant’s mother visited, and they had a spa session into the early hours of the morning. The landlord knocked on the front door and this had startled the tenant and ruined her one night with her mother. The landlord slamming the front gate had caused the tenant’s eldest daughter to wake up and had upset her.

The tenant also said that the landlord had barged through the front gate on 22 April 2025 calling out the tenant’s name. The tenant said that this had horrified her 11-year-old daughter and caused a huge deal of anxiety for the tenant.

Landlord acknowledged that the tenant was normally quite quiet including her daughters. In the early hours of the spa pool session, the female landlord had been woken up due to the noise and she in turn woke the male landlord up. The landlord described drinking, giggling and shouting between 2 to 3 am and that led to the landlord asking the tenant to take the reunion inside instead.

The landlord denied having called the tenant’s name from inside the gate. The landlord had called the tenant’s name from outside the gate and then walked over to the front door.

Finally, the tenant said that the landlord harassed the tenant by sending numerous texts, emails and phone calls regarding the power bill name changeover. She said that there were 14-day letters and texts telling her that she needed to think through her decision clearly.

Having heard from both parties and having seen the evidence presented, I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord has interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises.

The tenant cannot expect the landlord to not turn up when she raises maintenance issues.

The number of interactions between the parties was a natural byproduct of living in the same section of land with the landlord. I do not find that the landlord’s actions were unreasonable at any point or amounted to harassment.

I dismiss this claim. Compensation for water used by the landlord and work done for the landlord

The tenant claimed that the tenant used the tenant’s water to water the natives.

The landlord denied using the tenant’s water and claimed to have used the landlord’s own water. 5314701, 53153246

As the tenant cannot prove that the landlord has used the tenant’s water, I dismiss this claim.

The tenant also claimed money for the work done on painting the container. The landlord said that the tenant offered to help and there was no agreement for payment for the painting done by the tenant.

Contractual issues between the parties are outside the ambit of the Tenancy Tribunal. As payment for services is outside the scope of the RTA, I decline to make any decisions on this issue. If the tenant is to pursue this, the tenant should make an application with the Disputes Tribunal regarding this issue. Unlawful entry

The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenant had moved from Wellington to this premises in Orewa on 21 February 2025. She drove with all her furniture and unloaded the truck with furniture and collected keys to the premises.

The tenant stayed one night and drove the empty truck back on the following morning. The tenant picked up the children and the last of her stuff in the car the following Tuesday on 25 February 2025.

Although the tenant had locked the property before the tenant left, the tenant noticed that when she arrived that some furniture foam floor protectors had been left on the dining room table. The tenant also noticed that some things had been moved from the bench as if someone had tried to tidy up the tenant’s kitchen. The tenant had found this extremely distressful and completely violating.

The landlord acknowledged that he had been inside the premises while the tenant was not there to run the television cable and a network line into the lounge. The parties had a conversation about it on the phone. The landlord remembered giving the tenant the key before the tenancy began to move her belongings in first and thought he worked on the cable prior to the tenancy formally began. The landlord acknowledged that he had left a furniture foam floor protector and also accepted that he may have moved stuff into one of the 5314701, 53153247 bedrooms while still cleaning and sorting out the house. The landlord believed that this all happened before the tenancy formally began.

The tenant was adamant that the tenant had received the key on start date of the tenancy and not any time before. I accept her recollection of the event as she was able to match the days of the week to the relevant dates.

I find that the landlord has entered the premises sometime between 22 and 25 February 2025. I find that the landlord had entered without proper grounds under section 48 RTA being made out. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

However, I accept that the landlord was genuinely mistaken as to whether or not the tenancy had formally begun at that point. The premises was left unoccupied for 2 or 3 days at the beginning. The landlord had remembered doing the tenant a favour by allowing her to leave her goods there first. I acknowledge the landlord’s memory may not be entirely accurate and I also acknowledge the good intentions of the landlord.

Therefore, although I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act, it was not something that was repeated during the tenancy and I decline to award any exemplary damages for this breach. Failure to lodge the bond

The tenant claimed the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.

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 RTA.

The bond was paid to the Bond Centre 56 working days after the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord explained that they were preoccupied with working on the tenant’s container first and overlooked the bond lodging.

As the bond was filed, albeit late, I find that it was an unintentional failure by the landlord.

As I do not find that the bond was intentionally withheld by the landlord, I declined to award any exemplary damages. The landlord’s cross-application – rent arrears 5314701, 53153248

Having considered the tenant’s application, now I turn to consider the landlord’s cross-application.

The landlord claimed for rent arrears of $710.00. The tenant did not dispute this amount.

Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay the landlord $710.00 as sought. Compensation for damages

For compensation claims, 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.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The Tribunal must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal takes into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The landlord claimed compensation for damages on the bamboo flooring in one of the bedrooms. The landlord claimed that the damage was caused by the bed head being used without any felt protective pads.

The tenant disputed causing the damage and that it could have been pre- existing damage that was unnoticed due to the curtains.

The parties confirmed that there were no photos at the beginning of the tenancy to prove that the damages were not pre-existing. 5314701, 53153249

As the landlord has failed to prove that the damage was caused by the tenant, I decline to award any compensation for damages on the bamboo flooring.

The landlord claimed $205.00 for replacing the bifold door handle in the lounge.

The tenant accepted that the bifold door handle broke when she was using it sometime around May 2025. The tenant said that there was some movement in the door handle already. The landlord explained that there was another little handle to make the bifold door secure before it was to be closed and that it was the tenant’s misuse of the handle by not fully pulling on the handle to have the bifold door shut before turning the handle.

I find that the damage was caused by the tenant’s careless use of the bifold door handle. I order the tenant to pay the landlord $205.00.

The landlord also claimed $150.00 for repainting the window jambs on two windows and also for on of the bedrooms. The tenant had used self-adhesive tinsels and mini hooks to hang some LED lights, but it seems that that the adhesives were too strong for the paint and should not have been used in the first place.

After the tenant had removed them, the paint around the edges and on the window jambs had come off and required repainting.

I find that this was careless damage and something that the tenant is liable for.

I order the tenant to pay the landlord $150.00 for the painting. Power disconnection fee

The landlord had sought $300.00 power and gas disconnection fee from the tenant.

The power connection was originally under the landlord’s name fixed for a year. This was to ensure that all five power accounts for the buildings within the same plot of land could benefit from a group discount offered by the power company.

As the tenancy was originally for a fixed-term of one year, this made economic sense to the landlord to benefit the tenant.

However, as the landlord was on-billing to the tenant, the landlord had asked that the tenant pay off the monthly power bills in a lump sum to benefit from the early payment discount as well.

The tenant wanted to have flexibility in paying off the power bills weekly instead.

Due to this inflexibility of payment options, the tenant had told the landlord that she wanted the power connection under her own name so she could pay the power company directly as she saw fit. 5314701, 531532410

The landlord was told by the power company that there would be a $300.00 fee for breaking the fixed-term services with the power company, being $150.00 for gas and $150.00 with power. The landlord had passed this information on to the tenant and asked her to think through her decision carefully.

To save the tenant the disconnection fee, the landlord explained the situation with the power company and managed to secure no break fees for the tenant if she stayed on with the same power company for the balance of the fixed term.

Unfortunately, the tenant ended up switching power companies and the landlord was billed with $300.00 disconnection fee by the power company.

Although well intentioned by the landlord, the tenant chose to switch companies due to the inflexibility of the landlord’s payment requests.

It is correct that the tenant would have been able to pay off the power company weekly instead of paying the full amount in one lump sum as requested by the landlord if the account was under her own name.

If the landlord allowed the tenant to do the same by the landlord paying the monthly bill first and then allowing the tenant to pay off in weekly instalments instead, the disconnection fee would not have been incurred.

Incurring additional fees is a natural consequence of breaking a fixed-term tenancy earlier. This is something that the tenant needs to bear ordinarily.

As both parties are at fault, I order the tenant to pay $150.00 for the disconnection fee to the landlord. Filing fee and bond refund

As both parties had some success, I do not order for any one party to pay the other party’s filing fee.

The amount awarded for the landlord will be paid from the bond. The remainder of the bond will be refunded to the tenant.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5314701 — net $715.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13/07/2025	$710.00		Rent arrears to 13/07/2025
Repairs: replacing bifold handle	$205.00		Repairs: replacing bifold handle
Repairs: Re-painting window jambs/walls	$150.00		99. As both parties are at fault, I order the tenant to pay $150.00 for the disconnection fee to the landlord.
Power disconnection fee	$150.00		99. As both parties are at fault, I order the tenant to pay $150.00 for the disconnection fee to the landlord.
Compensation: Failing to comply with HHS (heating		$500.00	Failing to comply with HHS (heating
Total award	$1,215.00	$500.00
Net award	$715.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$715.00