What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317939 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 5317939?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $9,880.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Less Rent Reduction Received: $7,087.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317939?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317939?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13505767-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317939 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 5317939?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $9,880.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Less Rent Reduction Received: $7,087.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317939?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317939?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13505767-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

68 Owhiro Bay Parade, Owhiro Bay, Wellington 6023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317939 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

68 Owhiro Bay Parade, Owhiro Bay, Wellington 6023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317939 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317939 — net $5,521.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Less rent reduction received	$7,087.00		Less rent reduction received
Cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning
Insurance excess for stovetop replacement	$1,000.00		Insurance excess for stovetop replacement
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$9,880.00	Loss of amenity
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$4,000.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$8,387.00	$13,908.00
Net award		$5,521.00
Bond		$4,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$5,521.00

Claims and awards for application 5317939 — net $5,521.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Less rent reduction received

Amount: $7,087.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Less rent reduction received

Cleaning

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Insurance excess for stovetop replacement

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Insurance excess for stovetop replacement

Compensation: Loss of amenity

Amount: $9,880.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Loss of amenity

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment

Amount: $4,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of quiet enjoyment

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Tommy's Property Management Limited As Agent For T Rameka must pay [The tenant/s] $5,521.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 (BN-00030412) to [The tenant/s][The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place over three days on 26 November 2025, 18 December 2025 and 10 March 2026. The landlord was represented by property managers, Ms Pike and Ms Day. Background
The house is a two-level, five-bedroom house with two garages. The main kitchen, living, dining, bathroom and laundry rooms are situated on the first level, which also has a large, covered patio area. The ground floor comprises of two self-contained living spaces each with a bedroom and their own kitchen/kitchenette, lounge areas and toilet/shower ensuites. There was also a second washing machine on the ground floor.
The four tenants comprised of a couple who occupied the two upstairs bedrooms which had been converted into one large master bedroom with walk-in wardrobe. They also used the main upstairs bathroom, kitchen and living areas. The two remaining tenants each occupied the self-contained living spaces downstairs.
The tenancy began on 15 January 2025 and was for a fixed term until 21 January 2026. However, the tenancy terminated early by mutual agreement of the parties on 3 December 2025.
The property was managed by Tommy’s Property Management Limited as agent for the owner.
The tenants filed their application with the Tribunal on 4 August 2025 and the landlord filed their cross application on 19 November 2025.
At the start of the tenancy, there were several cleaning and maintenance issues raised by the tenants that were largely repaired by the landlord. These issues may be characterised as minor-moderate in terms of their impact on the tenants. However, there developed a series of leaks at the property which caused significant inconvenience and impact on the tenants. Leaks were discovered as follows: a leak in the garage from the exterior upper deck; leaks from the upstairs bathroom into the downstairs bedroom; roof leaks into the first level lounge area; and an exterior leak caused by a burst pipe. The leaks resulted in a major programme of remedial works undertaken by the landlord, between May-October 2025, while the tenants remained in occupation.
The landlord completed works to address the leaks and other maintenance issues during the tenancy and gave the tenants a 30% rent reduction for part of the tenancy. The rent chargeable from 15 January 2025 to 3 December 2025 at $1,100/week was $50,757.14. The landlord’s rent record shows that they charged the tenants $43,921.42, and the tenants paid $43,670. The landlord has not claimed the difference due at the end of the tenancy of $251.42. In summary this means that the tenants have received a rent reduction of $7,087.14 (being $50,757.14 less $43,670).
The tenants claim that the maintenance was required because the landlord breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS) in the first place. They claim that the maintenance and repair work was not completed in a reasonable timeframe, and the work caused massive interruption and loss of amenity in their use of the premises. They also claim that not all leaks and maintenance issues were fixed. They seek further compensation and exemplary damages accordingly.
The landlord has cross applied for compensation following the tenancy ending. The Claims
The tenants claim: a. The landlord failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition in relation to the following and/or the items do not meet HHS: i. The exterior of the building (windows in particular) and grounds were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy; ii. The garage backdoor, the main front door, and a bedroom door lock were broken and subsequently the main garage door broke; iii. Windows did not close properly in the 2 upstairs bedrooms with a handle missing from one of the windows; the main bathroom heated towel rail was not working; the garage lights were not working; iv. Leaks were entering garage 1 from the balcony above; v. Leaks were entering the downstairs bedroom 1 from upstairs bathroom; vi. Power outages were caused by the faulty washing machine in the upstairs laundry with the machine not replaced for 19 days; vii. Leaks were entering the upstairs lounge ceiling; viii. Further leaks/moisture problems occurred in the upstairs master bedroom wardrobe and on the kitchen side of the lounge wall; ix. An external leak occurred caused by a burst water pipe; x. In relation to the downstairs self-contained areas, there was no extractor fans in the kitchens and the extractor fan in one of the bathrooms was not in good working order. xi. Other maintenance issues occurred in November 2025–water pressure dropping; hot/cold water temperature fluctuations; upstairs dishwasher leaking; kitchen bin came off rails; downstairs toilet flush issue; water puddle on downstairs step dripping from above; mould in upstairs bedroom. b. The tenants’ belongings were damaged by mould and required replacement; c. The landlord breached the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment of the premises due to the constant construction work at the property; d. The landlord and/or their tradespeople unlawfully entered the premises on at least 42 occasions with no or insufficient notice given.
In addition to the rent reduction already received the tenants seek further compensation for loss of amenity of the premises as follows: a. From 15 January to 19 March 25 and 24 October to 3 December 25 a 30% rent reduction of $4,808.57 b. From 19 March to 1 June 25 a 60% rent reduction of $6,977.14; c. From 1 June to 24 October 25, a 100% rent reduction of $16,170.
The tenants seek $2,252.25 to replace belongings damaged by mould.
The tenants seek $12,600 for unlawful entry/breach of quiet enjoyment due to the landlord/tradespeople entering the property to assess and/or conduct repairs either with no or insufficient notice and the constant construction noise and disruption. They calculate this on the basis that there were 42 entries, and they should be awarded $300 per entry.
Finally, the tenants seek exemplary damages for breaches of maintenance and HHS.
The landlord claims: a. Cleaning costs at the end of the tenancy; b. Costs to replace a damaged ceramic stovetop; c. Compensation/exemplary damages for operating a commercial business from the premises.
Both parties provided extensive submissions including a detailed evidence timeline from the tenants, the landlord’s response to this timeline, copies of their correspondence with each other and tradespeople, photos and videos. I confirm that I have reviewed all the material submitted before writing this decision.

Did the landlord comply with their cleaning and maintenance obligations?

A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 1 and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 2
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. 3
Landlords are liable for defects they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire that knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 4 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 s45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is......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...” 5
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation. 6 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair, or the need for repair is apparent from observation. 7 Cleanliness and condition of premises at start of /early in the tenancy (claims 11a, i-iii above)
I accept on the evidence that the exterior of the premises and grounds were not reasonably clean and tidy when the tenancy started. However, the landlord 1 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 3 Section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA 4 Stewart Benson, Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18 5 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 6 See n4 above and Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as LJ Hooker [2015] TT 2845 at [9] and [11] 7 See n4 above and Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey, DC Auckland CIV 2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [47] arranged to tidy the grounds by 17 January 2025. They also advised that washing of the exterior would be deferred to later in the year.
The tenants also reported an issue with a bedroom door lock which was fixed relatively quickly by 22 January 2025.
The garage door belt snapped on 27 February 2025 and was fixed on 6 March. The tenants say that their car was stuck inside the garage but there was no evidence that they advised the landlord of this. Therefore, I consider the time taken to repair the issue was reasonable.
The tenants reported other maintenance issues on 19 March 2025—damage and rotting of garage backdoor, the main front door sticking; windows not closing properly in the 2 upstairs bedrooms with a handle missing from one of the windows; the heated towel rail not working in the main bathroom; and the garage lights not working. These matters were assessed on 2 April when the landlord’s contractor visited. On that day he installed some missing flaps for the handles on some of the windows and later provided quotes for repairing the garage backdoor and replacing window stays on one of the windows. This work was completed on or about 14 May. However, there is no evidence that the towel rail or garage lights were fixed, and the tenants reported that one of the windows remained open and unable to be closed. These matters were fixed much later in the tenancy when other remedial work was undertaken.
Overall, I accept that cleaning and repairs that were evident when the tenancy started should have been completed by the landlord beforehand which is a breach of their obligations under s45(1)(a) RTA. Some of the maintenance issues reported early in the tenancy were dealt with but not in a reasonable time frame. For example, it took the landlord until 14 May to repair the garage back door and replace the window stays—a delay of almost 8 weeks. Some items were not repaired until much later. For example, the heated towel rail was not addressed until the bathroom replacement renovations were completed later in the year. Therefore, I find that most of these repairs were not completed in a reasonable time frame which is a breach of s45(1)(b) RTA.
Overall, I find the above issues were minor in terms of seriousness and impact on the tenants.
For any breach of s45, the Tribunal may consider compensation for the loss of amenity. I address compensation later in the decision after I have determined all the tenants’ claims because there is some overlap of breaches occurring at the same time. It therefore makes sense to consider a global award of compensation taking all proved claims into account. Garage 1 leaks
There is no dispute that water was leaking through the butanol deck into garage 1 below. The garage ceiling beams were wet and mouldy, and the floor was wet. On 19 March 2025, the tenants sent an email to the landlord detailing the garage leak and other maintenance issues referred to above. The landlord’s contractor looked at this leak on 2 April and provided a quote to waterproof the deck. However, the contractor sent the quote to the wrong email address, and the landlord did not receive it until 2 May. The landlord decided to obtain a second quote, which they later accepted. The second quote recommended removal and replacement of the damaged areas of decking membrane; repairing the damaged substrate, then applying a weathertight surface coating. An email from the landlord shows this work was scheduled for 11&12 June. The tenants confirm the work was completed then, some 12 weeks after they reported the leak.
I accept that the leak caused moisture, dampness and mould in garage 1. However, there is no evidence that it affected the living and sleeping areas of the premises, and the tenants could still park a car in the garage.
I find that the landlord failed to remedy this leak within a reasonable timeframe which is a breach of s45(1)(b) RTA and the tenants are entitled to some compensation for the loss of amenity. Bathroom/bedroom 1 leak, power outages and faulty washing machine
The tenants reported water dripping from the upstairs main bathroom into the ground floor bedroom 1 on 5 May 2025. This turned out to be a serious leak that took some time to identify and several months to fix.
Before the above leak was investigated, the tenants experienced a power outage also affecting bedroom 1 on 7 May. An electrician attended on 7 May and briefly restored the power. His invoice records that the hot point circuit in the bedroom was faulty and he isolated the circuit and re-instated power to other areas. The invoice also records the leak into bedroom 1 and a decision to wait until the leak was repaired before tracing out the fault with the hot point circuit.
In the meantime, a further outage occurred on 8 May affecting bedroom 1 downstairs and all the upstairs floor. The tenants remained without power to parts of the house until 14 May, when the electrician discovered that the power outage had been caused by a fault with the washing machine in the upstairs laundry. The machine needed to be replaced. The machine was replaced on 26 May, 19 days after the first outage. However, the tenants were able to use a second washing machine located on the ground floor.
On 14 May, a plumber attended the premises to investigate the leak. His invoice records that he cut open the wall behind the shower to find water leaking from the shower elbow, He replaced the shower elbow and checked it.
Subsequent visits from plumbers, and builders took place to track the source of the leak, investigate the damage caused, and the repairs required. Over the course of the next few weeks, large sections of the walls in the upstairs bathroom and lounge, gib around the ceiling beam running through bedroom 1, and sections of ceiling in bedroom 1 were removed. The ceiling and beam in bedroom 1 were wet and filled with mould. The builders covered the area with plastic. ChemDry was instructed to attend on 26 June with seven fans to dry out the upstairs bathroom and downstairs bedroom, before remedial work could be done.
Unfortunately, further leaking occurred on 27 June. More gib was removed from the upstairs lounge and downstairs bedroom.
On 6 July, the builders and the owners asked to inspect the areas and lifted the bathroom floor. Over the next few days, they also removed more of the ceiling in the downstairs bedroom and more of the wall between the bathroom and lounge so that you could see from the lounge into the bathroom. ChemDry attended again with fans to dry out the areas
On 23 July, Ms Pike emailed the tenants with a timeline for the remedial work now that the areas had dried out and the builder believed the source of the leak had been found. The builder was to water test the shower on 25 July and, provided there was no leaking, it was anticipated that remedial work to the walls, floors and ceilings in the bathroom, lounge and downstairs bedroom would be completed by 1 August.
Unfortunately, the shower water test failed. It was then decided that the upstairs shower must be demolished and rebuilt. Once that work was completed, the builders would reinstall the ceiling in the downstairs bedroom. This work commenced on 5 August and was largely completed by 11 September.
Work to plaster, sand and paint the downstairs bedroom ceiling required the tenant in that room to vacate and was completed during the period 22-27 September. The landlord covered the cost of alternative accommodation for the tenant occupying bedroom 1.
On 3 October, the upstairs shower leaked into the downstairs bedroom again due to a problem with the grouting which was repaired the next week.
The tenants gave evidence that a plumber attending the premises for another exterior leak later in October advised them that he had quoted for leak repairs in 2024 which the owner declined. When the tenants contacted the plumbing firm concerned, they retracted the plumber’s statements claiming that he was confused.
The owner stated in an email dated 4 December 2025 that he lived at the premises for several years and never had an issue with leaks and nor did the previous tenants. He also said that he had no quotes or recommendations for remedial work relating to the leaks prior to this tenancy.
The landlords had also obtained an HHS assessment dated 24 April 2024 attached to the tenancy agreement which confirmed that the premises complied with the moisture ingress and drainage standards.
I consider that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the owner/landlord knew about potential leak problems prior to this tenancy. There is no direct evidence from the plumber who made this statement to the tenants. The evidence from the tenants is hearsay and the maker of the statement cannot be questioned about it. Therefore, it has little evidential value.
Based on the evidence, I accept that the bathroom/downstairs bedroom leak was a latent defect not visible nor reasonably foreseeable by the landlord. The time it took to identify the source of the leak and repair it escalated beyond the reasonable contemplation of the landlord and their contractors. I also consider that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and repair the leaks. Delay was caused due to the complexity of identifying the leak source which is often a process of elimination. It is difficult to find that the landlord is in breach of their obligations under s45(1)(b) RTA regarding the leak. However, the effect of the leak was to cause a loss of amenity in relation to the premises for which the tenants are paying rent. On that basis, the Tribunal may order the landlord to pay to the tenant such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement. 8 It is an implied provision that the tenants are entitled to the full use of all the amenities of the premises for which they are paying rent and they should be compensated for any loss of amenity caused other than through their fault. Upstairs lounge leaks
On 4 July 2025, the tenants reported a new leak entering the ceiling of the upstairs lounge area. On 11 July the leak got worse after heavy rain. The builders erected a tarpaulin over the roof on 12 July. It was subsequently established that part of the roof needed replacement. Roofing materials were ordered and delivered to the site on 14 August, and the roof was installed on 15 August. The builder’s invoice records that they removed the skillion roof over the lounge area including removal of the internal guttering and skylights. New roofing paper, new internal guttering and long run colour steel were installed over this part of the roof along with new colour steel flashings. In the weeks following this, the builders attended the site to complete the remedial work in the bathroom and downstairs bedroom and to reinstate, plaster, sand and paint those rooms and the lounge ceiling. All the work was completed by 20 October. 8 Section 77(1)(n) RTA
I am satisfied on the evidence that the lounge roof leak was also a latent defect not visible nor reasonably foreseeable by the landlord. The landlord took reasonable steps to address the leak in a reasonable time frame. However, the tenants are entitled to compensation for the loss of amenity. Further leaks/moisture problems
On 23 September 2025, the tenants reported another leak that looked to be entering through the window area in the kitchen as they noticed puddles of water on the kitchen bench. A hanging shelf fell off the wall of the lounge on the kitchen side as a result. The builder advised the landlord that the moisture was most likely residual damage from the roof leak and the shelf had been overloaded with plants. The area was later plastered and painted. I note that there is no evidence of any further leaking in this area.
On 1 October 2025, the tenants reported mould on the ceiling of the master bedroom walk-in wardrobe. They were concerned that this was evidence of another leak. The landlord says the builder inspected the area on 10 October including the roof and ceiling cavity. In his opinion, there was no moisture in the area, and he believed the mould was caused through living habits—failing to ventilate the area properly by opening windows and wiping condensation.
The question is whether the walk-in wardrobe mould might have occurred because of the leaks that had already been identified and remedied in the bathroom and lounge upstairs. However, the wardrobe ceiling is some distance away from the locations of both the lounge and bathroom leaks. Furthermore, there is an opening window in the walk-in wardrobe area. Therefore, in the absence of any building defect in the vicinity of the wardrobe ceiling mould, I find it likely that this mould resulted from lack of ventilation by failing to opening windows enough and wipe down condensation.
The tenants subsequently obtained their own Healthy Homes inspection report following an assessment on 13 October 2025. While the report notes mould in the house generally, it does not identify any moisture ingress issues or defects in the above areas.
In summary, I find that there is insufficient evidence of leaks or moisture ingress problems caused by further defects affecting the lounge/kitchen and master bedroom. Therefore, I find no breach of s45(1)(b) RTA by the landlord in relation to the mould on the wardrobe ceiling or the shelf falling off the wall in the lounge. Exterior water pipe leak
Wellington Water issued a notice to fix a private water pipe leak affecting the premises and the neighbouring property. Evidently, water was leaking into the neighbouring property. The landlord’s plumber was instructed to attend on 20 October 2025 to fix the pipe. The work involved digging up concrete with a jack hammer, carrying out repairs, and then laying new concrete. The work was completed by 24 October.
There is no evidence to prove that the burst water pipe was leaking into the premises, and it was fixed quickly once the landlord was notified of the problem. Therefore, I find no breach of s45(1)(b) by the landlord in relation to this issue. However, I accept that the work caused further disturbance for the tenants. Other maintenance issues
On 2 November 2025, the tenants reported other issues as follows—water pressure dropping; hot/cold water temperature fluctuations; upstairs dishwasher leaking; kitchen bin coming off the rails; downstairs toilet flusher issue; water puddle on downstairs step dripping from above; mould in upstairs bedroom that was not removed when the landlord arranged cleaning on 22 October after all the major internal remedial work was completed.
The landlord arranged for a technician to assess the dishwasher, but it was unable to be fixed, and replacement was recommended. This was not done before the tenancy ended on 3 December.
The landlord’s builder removed the kitchen bin doors, but the bin was not fixed before the tenancy ended. They also investigated the other plumbing issues, but no findings were provided. The landlord says that they were waiting for parts.
The landlord says the tenants requested that they leave the dishwasher and kitchen bin items until the tenancy ended, but this is not reflected in written correspondence at the time with the tenants specifically asking the landlord to address these matters in their emails dated 2 and 11 November.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the plumbing issues (dishwasher, toilet and water issues) and kitchen bin issue were validly raised by the tenants and were not fixed prior to the tenancy ending a month after the issues were reported. I consider the failure to repair the issues is a breach of s45(1)(b) for which the tenants are entitled to compensation.
In relation to mould on the master bedroom ceiling, I have already made a finding that it was not caused by a defect with the premises affecting that area and likely resulted from the tenants’ living habits. Therefore, I find that the landlord has not breached their obligations under s45(1)(b) regarding this issue.

What compensation should be awarded?

Having found that the landlord either failed to repair issues in a reasonable timeframe and/or that the landlord is responsible for a loss of amenity suffered by the tenants, I turn to the issue of compensation. It is well accepted when awarding compensation that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Appellate courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering awards. The assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact science, and a commonsense approach is required. There are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount, but the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
The tenants seek rent abatements ranging from 30% to 100% for periods of the tenancy. However, I find that the amounts sought are far too high. I award the following amounts to reflect the loss of amenity: a. For the failure to tidy the grounds—no award as the work was completed on 17 January with no material loss suffered by the tenants; b. For the broken bedroom door lock and garage door belt—no award because they were fixed in a reasonable time; c. For the damaged garage back door; window repairs (fixed by 14 May, 7 weeks after the issues were reported); power outage (fixed on 14 May, 7 days later); time without the main washing machine, taking into account that a second washing machine was available (replaced by 26 May, 19 days later) and leaks into the garage (fixed by 12 June 2025, 12 weeks later) I award one week’s rent of $1,100 which I consider is fair and reasonable. d. For the period of approximately 6 months from 5 May to 24 October, I consider that a 30% abatement of rent should be applied in relation to the loss of amenity suffered due to the leaks affecting the upstairs bathroom, lounge, bedroom 1 downstairs, the exterior pipe leak and the time taken to complete the repairs and remediate the areas. This amounts to $8,580. e. For the remaining issues reported on 2 November—water pressure dropping; hot/cold water temperature fluctuations; upstairs dishwasher leaking; kitchen bin coming off rails; downstairs toilet flusher issue; water puddle on downstairs step dripping from above, that were not remedied before the tenancy ended, I award $200. f. I also consider that other miscellaneous repairs that occurred over the course of the tenancy and took time to resolve are reasonably covered by the above awards.
The total of the above awards is $9,880. However, the tenants have already received a rent abatement of $7,087. Therefore, the balance award is $2,793.
The awards reflect a global approach to compensation recognising that the extent of the loss of amenity was not a constant and differed depending on the dates various jobs were completed, noting that there were also overlapping issues. Importantly, I do not find that the loss of amenity suffered was to the extent that a 60-100% abatement is justified. Such high rent abatement rates would suggest that the property was uninhabitable in which case the tenants would be entitled to give a 2-day notice to end the tenancy. 9 They did not do so and nor was there evidence presented to suggest that the premises were uninhabitable. Were the tenants’ belongings damaged by mould and, if so, is the landlord liable for the replacement costs?
The landlord noted a damp smell in lounge 1 downstairs at the inspection on 8 April 2025. Given the leak in the adjoining garage, and the leak from the upstairs shower discovered subsequently, causing mould and damp on the ceiling in bedroom 1, those defects likely led to the damp smell in lounge 1.
On 2 July 2025, the tenants notified the landlord of mould on high windows in the upstairs lounge; mould in the upstairs office; severe mould on curtains throughout the house but worse in the upstairs master bedroom; mould on the stairs sliding door; severe mould on downstairs bedroom ceiling; mould in main large window in upstairs lounge; excessive mould in the upstairs bathroom; and mouldy blinds in upstairs bedroom. They asked for a rent reduction due to this and other issues. At this stage they did not advise the landlord of any mould damage to belongings.
After the 20 August inspection, the landlord advised the tenants to wipe mould from window frames, sills and glass in the upstairs lounge, upstairs master bedroom and downstairs bedroom 1 and clean blinds in bedroom 1 to remove mould. At that time major works were under way or had just been completed to deal with the leaks affecting those areas.
The tenants responded to the landlord’s inspection notes on 8 September, asking for the landlord to arrange for a professional clean of the premises. They argued that the mould and dirt present at the premises was largely caused by the leaks and the construction works. The tenants did not indicate that any of their belongings were being damaged by mould at this stage. 9 See sections 59 and 59A RTA which set out the grounds for terminating a tenancy when the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement or because of a breach by one party.
The landlord responded on 12 September reminding the tenants of their obligations to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy which included steps to prevent mould such as ventilating the home; wiping condensation and removing mould as soon as it appears. The landlord advised that mould was not solely caused by building work and can also result from everyday living.
The tenants say this response was unreasonable and maintained that they were not responsible for cleaning up damage caused by leaks, water ingress and renovations. They insisted that the landlord have the premises professionally cleaned when the renovations were completed. The landlord finally agreed and arranged commercial cleaning of the premises on 22 October.
On 17 September, the tenants amended their Tribunal application to seek replacement costs for belongings damaged by mould.
Photos were presented at the hearing of the tenants’ belongings.
First, I have already found that the mould on the ceiling in the upstairs walk-in wardrobe likely resulted from lack of ventilation (opening windows) in that area rather than the defects at the premises in other rooms. I also find that mould on belongings in that room likely resulted from the method of storage and lack of ventilation and airflow. Therefore, I dismiss the claim for compensation to replace the tenants’ belongings stored in that room.
In relation to the tenant’s belongings in bedroom 1 (which was directly affected by leaks) I accept that it is more likely that belongings may have been damaged by mould resulting from the leaks. The tenant in this room supplied photos of three pairs of shoes and advised the age of the items as follows— Doc Martin leather shoes-4 years old; New Balance running shoes-1 year old; leather knee high boots-2 years old. However, there was no evidence to establish the age of the items and when purchased, nor evidence as to whether the mould could be cleaned off the items. In particular, the mould spots on the boots and running shoes looks minor and able to be cleaned. The Doc Martins are reasonably old. Any claim for replacement costs would need to be depreciated for fair wear and tear.
In summary, I am not satisfied that the items were damaged by mould such that they could not be cleaned rather than replaced. Even if I am wrong, there is insufficient evidence to establish the age of the items for depreciation purposes. The claims are not proved and must be dismissed.

Has the landlord breached the healthy homes standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard. The compliance date for this tenancy was within 120 days of the commencement date which was 15 May 2025.
The ventilation requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants commissioned a Healthy Homes assessment on 13 October 2025. The assessor completed a report that found the home complied with HHS except in relation to ventilation. In the downstairs self-contained units neither kitchen had extractor fans and the extractor fan in bathroom 2 was not working and needed replacement. It is not clear when this report was disclosed to the landlord and may only have been provided at the first hearing on 26 November 2025, shortly before the tenancy ended.
Attached to the tenancy agreement was a copy of the HHS assessment report completed for the landlord dated 24 April 2024. This report assessed that the property was compliant except for downstairs bathroom 2 needing an extractor fan which was installed prior to this tenancy. This report does not mention the need for extractor fans in the downstairs kitchens at all, nor detail why these kitchens may be exempt from the requirements.
The landlord relied on the HHS report they obtained and assumed, after installing the extractor fan in bathroom 2, that the property was fully compliant.
In relation to the bathroom extractor fan not working, this was not reported to the landlord during the tenancy by the tenants. Therefore, I find that the landlord cannot be held liable for a failure to repair or replace it.
However, I find on the evidence that the landlord is in breach of the HHS ventilation standard because there are no extractor fans in the downstairs kitchens, and there is no evidence that an exemption might apply.

Are the tenants entitled to exemplary damages?

Failure by the landlord to comply with any obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with Healthy Homes standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to $7,200 may be awarded. 10
In this case the tenants proved breaches of s45(1)(b) RTA regarding maintenance issues not fixed in a reasonable timeframe including the garage leak (see paragraphs 26 and 31 above), and failure to comply with the HHS ventilation standard (see paragraph 85 above), which are unlawful acts.
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, 10 Section 45(1A) and schedule 1A RTA having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. 11
I consider that the failure to fix various maintenance issues in a reasonable timeframe was not intentional and an award of exemplary damages is not justified. Overall, the landlord investigated the issues and took steps to remedy the problems, albeit some delay occurred in obtaining quotes and with contractor availability.
Arguably, the failure to comply with the HHS for ventilation was not intentional in that the landlord obtained a professional HHS assessment and relied on it. Conversely, it could be argued that the HHS regulation clearly states that each kitchen in the premises must have an extractor fan installed. 12 Therefore, the issue is whether the landlord may reasonably rely on the HHS report or whether the landlord ought to have questioned why the report did not address the lack of extractor fans in the downstairs kitchens. Should the landlord have made some further enquiry?
On balance, I consider the landlord was entitled to rely on the report regarding compliance with the HHS and the matter of intention is not proved. Therefore, I cannot consider exemplary damages and the claim is dismissed. Has the landlord entered the premises unlawfully and/or breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord entered the premises without consent or the required notice and breached their quiet enjoyment of the premises. They seek compensation for the breaches.
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, repairs and maintenance. 13 However, the definition of premises does not include land or facilities. 14
For carrying out necessary repairs or maintenance, the landlord (or their contractors/agents) may enter the premises at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry. 15 11 Section 109(3) RTA 12 Regulation 23 HHS 13 Section 48(1) & (2) RTA 14 Section 48(7) RTA 15 Section 48(2)(d) RTA
A landlord must also not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 16
The landlord’s right to carry out maintenance or renovations is inconsistent with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. It is a balancing act to determine the level of intrusion or nuisance that a tenant can reasonably expect to endure. The landlord is entitled to carry out maintenance, but those actions can quickly breach reasonable peace, comfort and privacy if they are not well managed. Regardless of whether entry to the premises to carry out work complies with notice requirements, the landlord’s actions may still breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises, particularly where the tenants have no prior knowledge of the work that is going to take place.
There is no dispute that multiple tradespeople attended the premises to investigate the issues and carry out repairs including builders, roofers, plumbers, electricians and ChemDry contractors. For large periods of the tenancy, there was invasive work that was noisy and dusty. The works required considerable communication between the contractors and the tenants to arrange access. The property managers confirmed at the hearing that they mostly relied on their contractors to liaise with the tenants directly for entry and their contractors were aware of the notice requirements and protocols.
The tenants compiled a timeline recording all visits to the property by the landlord and contractors over the course of the tenancy and highlighted instances where they claim contractors turned up with no, or insufficient, notice. They also provided copies of communications with contractors to support their claims. One of the tenants became the primary contact for this purpose and was essentially managing the process and communications for access with contractors. One of the tenants’ main complaints is that the landlord was not managing the project by providing a timeline of works and notices for access required in advance. It seemed to proceed on a more ad hoc basis. This is understandable to an extent because the leaks inside the house were unpredictable and difficult to diagnose. Resolving the leaks was a process of elimination.
Each tenant provided a personal statement outlining the impact of the works. The tenant occupying bedroom 1 who was most affected by the leak into her room stated: This has been so disruptive to my daily life. I get woken up at 8am by contractors knocking on the door, unsure of what work they are here to do on the house.......Most of the time we have no idea who is coming over. I am often home alone, having to answer the door to random men, I do not know........Even attempting to do university work at home is impossible because I have no idea when my peace is going to be 16 Section 38(2) RTA disrupted by power tools or industrial fans and dehumidifiers. I cannot stand the noise......The environment is depressing. It has caused much mental distress on me. We cannot invite friends over.........I am constantly packing and unpacking all my belongings, so they don’t get in the way of these contractors. I have been falling behind in my university......I am in so much constant distress....”
All tenants spoke of the massive disruption caused to their daily lives; the stress and frustration of dealing with the situation; how depressing it became living in the house; and how their work and studies were impacted.
The landlord also provided a response to the tenant’s timeline of visits with supporting evidence from their builder documenting visits to the premises and communications with the tenants. The landlords pointed out some examples where, contrary to the tenants’ claims, proper notice was given; the tenants consented to entry; or the tenants incorrectly recorded a visit.
I have carefully reviewed all the evidence provided and accept that there are occasions where less than 24 hours’ notice was given by contractors, but often the tenants agreed to the proposed time and/or allowed the contractors to enter. Where consent is given to short notice, this is not a breach of s48. For example, the tenants record that they received a text from the builder on 14 July at 2.54pm advising that he would like to work on the shower the next morning. The tenants gave this as an example of insufficient notice for which they seek compensation. However, the actual exchange is as follows: Builder: “I know it’s not 48hrs notice, but I’d like to work on the shower tomorrow for a couple of hours and see how the drying is progressing. Only, if you all are ok with the short notice???? Tenants: “No problem......Thanks for the text. (thumbs up emoji) Do you have a time? Builder: “Yep and 10ish—I know you lot are not early risers!! (laughing emoji) Clearly, consent is given by the tenants.
There are several examples of the tenants giving consent in this manner. However, while the tenants effectively gave consent at times to ensure the jobs got done, I accept that they endured multiple visits by contractors over a period of 6 months, which is breach of their quiet enjoyment in the use of the premises. The builder’s time records alone show that they and their sub- contractors attended the premises on 41 separate days (for 256 work hours) from May to October 2025. In addition, there were multiple attendances by the landlord, ChemDry and other trades. The noise, dust, and disruption, as well as the time spent liaising with multiple contractors who needed access over several months was beyond reasonable. Tenants are expected to put up with a degree of noise and general nuisance when maintenance issues arise and require remedy by a landlord but, in this case, I accept that the length and degree of the intrusion significantly impaired the quality of the tenancy.
In summary, I consider that access by the contractors and the resulting interference in the tenants’ use of the premises is more appropriately treated as a breach of quiet enjoyment under s38 because often the tenants allowed contractors to enter at short notice which is consent under s48.

Should compensation be awarded?

I have already awarded compensation for loss of amenity relating to the use of areas of the premises while the works were conducted. The issue is whether to award anything further to compensate for loss such as the impact of the construction noise, dust; continuous disruption, the tenants’ time liaising with contractors over a lengthy period and the intangible loss such as the mental distress, frustration and annoyance that resulted.
Tenants v Singh 17 provides some useful guidance regarding damages for intangible loss. The Tribunal considered previous case law which described the range of emotional harm damages awarded in the Tribunal as falling within three bands. Singh determined that these bands should be revised upwards as follows: a. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. b. Where due to the breach, the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. c. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.
Taking all matters into consideration, I consider that the frustration, inconvenience and mental distress suffered by the tenants is aptly described in band b. Therefore, I order the landlord to pay each tenant $1,000 making a total award of $4,000 for the breach of quiet enjoyment.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 18
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The owner cleaned over a period of 2 days and seeks cleaning 17 Tenants v Singh [2022] NZTT 4315225, at [125] 18 Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA costs of $580. The claim excludes cleaning of carpets and curtains. The landlord provided photos taken before the tenancy started and after the tenancy ended. The landlord also arranged a commercial clean of the premises on 22 October 2025 to restore the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition after the major construction and repair works had been completed. However, the landlord did not have photos of the premises after that cleaning was done to establish the condition of the premises at that point.
The tenants argue that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy, and they produced their own photos taken at the start. They also say that the cleaning commissioned by the landlord on 22 October did not address all the dirt and mould caused by the leaks and resulting building work. However, they paid for commercial cleaning at the end of the tenancy. I note that the invoice they provided appears to show that only the upstairs areas were cleaned.
I have compared the tenants’ photos at the start of the tenancy with the photos taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. I find that the premises were not left in the same condition but in a worse state that was not reasonably clean and tidy, However, I also accept that the landlord cannot prove the condition of the premises after the commercial cleaning they arranged on 22 October 2025 because no photos were taken. The scope of the 22 October cleaning detailed in the contractor’s invoice was to vacuum and/or wipe floors, skirtings, windowsills and framing, door tracks and surfaces to remove dust and dirt, and clean mould on ceilings and walls, in all the rooms of the house. The end of tenancy photos shows cleaning issues that are outside the scope of those works. Therefore, I hold the tenants liable for cleaning to that extent as follows: a. Bedroom 2-unit downstairs—belongings and debris left on floor; Blu-tak spots on walls; dirt inside cupboards; food debris in fridge/freezer; grease and dirt inside the oven; grease spots on wall and splashback; shower glass and dome not clean of soap scum; toilet bowl not clean; washing powder residue in washing machine; b. Bedroom 1 unit downstairs—dirt in kitchen cupboards; stains on mattress protector; shower glass not clean of soap scum; c. Main kitchen upstairs—Blu-tak on fridge door, debris inside fridge/freezer; interior oven and racks not clean d. Laundry upstairs—Fluff in dryer filter; washing machine soap tray not clean.
I award the landlord $300 for their time attending to the above cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 19
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. 20
The tenants accepted that the ceramic hob in one of the downstairs kitchens was cracked at the end of the tenancy and required replacement. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. The replacement amount sought is reduced to the insurance excess limitation.

Did the tenant use the premises for a commercial and/or unlawful purpose?

The RTA specifically envisages that premises may be used for both commercial and residential purposes. 21 However, the tenant must ensure that the premises are occupied principally for residential purposes. 22 The determination of this in each case will be a matter of degree and depend on the specific facts.
The RTA also provides that a tenant must not use the premises for any unlawful purpose. 23 Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $1,800. 24
The landlord seeks compensation of $10,000 plus exemplary damages on the basis that one of the tenants was operating a car sales operation from the premises without the landlord’s consent and likely in breach of local authority laws regarding zoning and use, making it an unlawful purpose.
The issues to determine are: Did the tenant operate a commercial business from the premises; Was the landlord’s consent required? Is the business an unlawful activity? Is the landlord entitled to compensation or exemplary damages? Landlord case 19 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 20 Section 49B(3)(a) RTA 21 Section 2(3) RTA 22 Section 40(1)(b) RTA 23 Section 40(2)(b) RTA 24 Section 40(3A) and schedule 1A RTA.
The property manager says that they were unaware that the tenant was operating a business from the premises as opposed to simply working from home. The owner was only alerted to this when visiting the premises in July 2025, seven months into the tenancy.
The business involved bringing vehicles to the premises for grooming; parking the vehicles at the premises; advertising the vehicles for sale with photographs taken in the Owhiro Bay area; and having customers attend the premises to view the vehicles and complete purchase transactions. The landlord produced copies of online advertising of the vehicles. A letter from a neighbour was provided after the tenancy had ended complaining about the additional vehicles parked in the public parking spaces at Owhiro Bay which affected parking for visitors.
The landlord advised the tenant by email on 15 July 2025 that operating a business from a residential property without the landlord’s explicit written consent was a potential breach of the tenancy agreement and may invalidate the landlord’s insurance policy exposing both parties to financial and legal risk. They asked for confirmation that the tenant was not conducting a business from the premises and/or to cease.
The tenant replied on 23 July explaining the nature of the business and formally requested the landlord’s consent to continue subject to any agreed conditions. He also expressed the view that his use of the premises was not a breach of the tenancy agreement.
By email on 24 July, the landlord advised as follows: “Should you wish to continue to operate your business, the owner is willing to receive a proposal from you in relation to this, which may result in a variation to the tenancy agreement. Please advise the terms that you would like this considered.”
The tenant messaged the landlord on 24 July stating: “As for the business operation, what does the owner expect in a proposal? I would like to ask for his permission to continue working from home and would like to review if there’s any changes in his insurance policy. Please let me know if he wants more information from me.” The landlord did not reply.
The landlord maintains that this business may have invalidated the landlord’s insurance cover over the property which does not cover commercial activities at the property; and the activity was not permitted by local authority use and zoning laws. The landlord’s insurance policy was not provided and nor did the landlord produce any specific evidence that local authority zoning or use laws had been breached by the tenant. Tenant case
Before the tenancy commenced, the tenant says he disclosed his self- employment in the flat CV submitted to the landlord. The CV states that the tenant runs a successful car business; that he has been growing a car dealership which has become his full-time job; and he is a director of a company which develops websites and apps. The CV does not say he intends to run this business from the premises. The tenant believes that he explained to the property managers that he was self-employed and working from home.
The business is a small, low-volume motor vehicle trading business which is primarily administrative and online in nature. It does not involve a showroom, workshop, staff, signage or regular customer attendance at the premises. The tenant buys trade-in vehicles from his suppliers. He sends the vehicles to a mechanic for checking and they are then delivered to the tenant at home. He stored the vehicles in the driveway and occasionally in the garage. Sometimes he cleaned the vehicles at the premises. He advertised the vehicles online for purchase stating “viewings in Owhiro Bay” without including the address of the premises. Prospective customers would message the tenant and occasionally view the vehicle at the property and complete the documentation required for sale and purchase. The tenant had set up an office in one of the garages.
After the landlord raised concerns in July, the tenant no longer parked the vehicles at the premises but used public parking spaces in Owhiro Bay or stored them with a mechanic off site. Grooming of the cars was done off-site and vehicle handovers were conducted away from the premises. He also changed the registered address of the business which had been the address of the premises.
The tenant sold 1-2 cars/week. The vehicles were often shipped sight unseen and the average time he owned the vehicles was 7 days. Discussion and findings
I find on the evidence that while the tenant may have advised the property manager that he was working from home, it was not clear that he was operating a second-hand car sales business from the property with the vehicles initially parked and sometimes cleaned at the premises. He should have disclosed the nature of the business in detail to the landlord so that they had a proper opportunity to check that the business operation did not breach any laws or insurance cover. Therefore, I consider the landlord’s consent should have been obtained.
Despite the business, I find that the premises were being occupied by the tenants principally for residential purposes because all four tenants occupied the premises as their home. The car sales business was not the principal use of the premises. I find that the tenants are not in breach of s40(1)(b).
The landlord provided no evidence as to the terms of the owner’s insurance policy and whether the business would have invalidated the policy, and nor did they provide specific evidence of a breach of any local authority use and zoning laws.
I accept that there are rules which apply to a person selling vehicles from their home. Wellington City Council guidelines published online provide that a home business must be small-scale and operated by a resident on-site. Home business activities don’t need resource consent if they meet the criteria for the activity within the zone the resident lives in. Some of the rules include: a. No more than 4 people may work in the home business at any one time; b. You cannot use more than a third of the total floor area of any buildings on site for the home business activities; c. You cannot create any dust nuisance on site; d. The home business cannot involve the use of trucks or other heavy vehicles; e. The home business cannot include the repair, alteration, restoration or maintenance of motor vehicles; f. You cannot conduct retailing on the site (with some exceptions); g. There are signage rules.
I also note that the tenant might need to be a legally registered motor vehicle trader (if he is not already), depending on the number of vehicles sold within a 12-month period.
It does not appear that the tenant’s business was in breach of the rules at least from July 2025, because from that point onwards he kept the vehicles off- site and conducted the sales transactions off site so that there were no customer visits to the premises.
In summary, I find that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the operation of the business amounted to using the premises for an unlawful purpose.
In any event, the landlord has not established the basis for any loss suffered because of the activity that would justify an award of compensation such as increased insurance premiums or any damage or nuisance caused.
For the above reasons, the claim is dismissed.
As the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims overall, I suppress their names and identifying details as requested and award reimbursement of the filing fee. The bond is also refunded in full to the tenants.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317939 — net $5,521.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Less rent reduction received	$7,087.00		Less rent reduction received
Cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning
Insurance excess for stovetop replacement	$1,000.00		Insurance excess for stovetop replacement
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$9,880.00	Loss of amenity
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$4,000.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$8,387.00	$13,908.00
Net award		$5,521.00
Bond		$4,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$5,521.00

Claims and awards for application 5317939 — net $5,521.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Less rent reduction received

Amount: $7,087.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Less rent reduction received

Cleaning

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Insurance excess for stovetop replacement

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Insurance excess for stovetop replacement

Compensation: Loss of amenity

Amount: $9,880.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Loss of amenity

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment

Amount: $4,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of quiet enjoyment

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Tommy's Property Management Limited As Agent For T Rameka must pay [The tenant/s] $5,521.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 (BN-00030412) to [The tenant/s][The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place over three days on 26 November 2025, 18 December 2025 and 10 March 2026. The landlord was represented by property managers, Ms Pike and Ms Day. Background
The house is a two-level, five-bedroom house with two garages. The main kitchen, living, dining, bathroom and laundry rooms are situated on the first level, which also has a large, covered patio area. The ground floor comprises of two self-contained living spaces each with a bedroom and their own kitchen/kitchenette, lounge areas and toilet/shower ensuites. There was also a second washing machine on the ground floor.
The four tenants comprised of a couple who occupied the two upstairs bedrooms which had been converted into one large master bedroom with walk-in wardrobe. They also used the main upstairs bathroom, kitchen and living areas. The two remaining tenants each occupied the self-contained living spaces downstairs.
The tenancy began on 15 January 2025 and was for a fixed term until 21 January 2026. However, the tenancy terminated early by mutual agreement of the parties on 3 December 2025.
The property was managed by Tommy’s Property Management Limited as agent for the owner.
The tenants filed their application with the Tribunal on 4 August 2025 and the landlord filed their cross application on 19 November 2025.
At the start of the tenancy, there were several cleaning and maintenance issues raised by the tenants that were largely repaired by the landlord. These issues may be characterised as minor-moderate in terms of their impact on the tenants. However, there developed a series of leaks at the property which caused significant inconvenience and impact on the tenants. Leaks were discovered as follows: a leak in the garage from the exterior upper deck; leaks from the upstairs bathroom into the downstairs bedroom; roof leaks into the first level lounge area; and an exterior leak caused by a burst pipe. The leaks resulted in a major programme of remedial works undertaken by the landlord, between May-October 2025, while the tenants remained in occupation.
The landlord completed works to address the leaks and other maintenance issues during the tenancy and gave the tenants a 30% rent reduction for part of the tenancy. The rent chargeable from 15 January 2025 to 3 December 2025 at $1,100/week was $50,757.14. The landlord’s rent record shows that they charged the tenants $43,921.42, and the tenants paid $43,670. The landlord has not claimed the difference due at the end of the tenancy of $251.42. In summary this means that the tenants have received a rent reduction of $7,087.14 (being $50,757.14 less $43,670).
The tenants claim that the maintenance was required because the landlord breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS) in the first place. They claim that the maintenance and repair work was not completed in a reasonable timeframe, and the work caused massive interruption and loss of amenity in their use of the premises. They also claim that not all leaks and maintenance issues were fixed. They seek further compensation and exemplary damages accordingly.
The landlord has cross applied for compensation following the tenancy ending. The Claims
The tenants claim: a. The landlord failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition in relation to the following and/or the items do not meet HHS: i. The exterior of the building (windows in particular) and grounds were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy; ii. The garage backdoor, the main front door, and a bedroom door lock were broken and subsequently the main garage door broke; iii. Windows did not close properly in the 2 upstairs bedrooms with a handle missing from one of the windows; the main bathroom heated towel rail was not working; the garage lights were not working; iv. Leaks were entering garage 1 from the balcony above; v. Leaks were entering the downstairs bedroom 1 from upstairs bathroom; vi. Power outages were caused by the faulty washing machine in the upstairs laundry with the machine not replaced for 19 days; vii. Leaks were entering the upstairs lounge ceiling; viii. Further leaks/moisture problems occurred in the upstairs master bedroom wardrobe and on the kitchen side of the lounge wall; ix. An external leak occurred caused by a burst water pipe; x. In relation to the downstairs self-contained areas, there was no extractor fans in the kitchens and the extractor fan in one of the bathrooms was not in good working order. xi. Other maintenance issues occurred in November 2025–water pressure dropping; hot/cold water temperature fluctuations; upstairs dishwasher leaking; kitchen bin came off rails; downstairs toilet flush issue; water puddle on downstairs step dripping from above; mould in upstairs bedroom. b. The tenants’ belongings were damaged by mould and required replacement; c. The landlord breached the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment of the premises due to the constant construction work at the property; d. The landlord and/or their tradespeople unlawfully entered the premises on at least 42 occasions with no or insufficient notice given.
In addition to the rent reduction already received the tenants seek further compensation for loss of amenity of the premises as follows: a. From 15 January to 19 March 25 and 24 October to 3 December 25 a 30% rent reduction of $4,808.57 b. From 19 March to 1 June 25 a 60% rent reduction of $6,977.14; c. From 1 June to 24 October 25, a 100% rent reduction of $16,170.
The tenants seek $2,252.25 to replace belongings damaged by mould.
The tenants seek $12,600 for unlawful entry/breach of quiet enjoyment due to the landlord/tradespeople entering the property to assess and/or conduct repairs either with no or insufficient notice and the constant construction noise and disruption. They calculate this on the basis that there were 42 entries, and they should be awarded $300 per entry.
Finally, the tenants seek exemplary damages for breaches of maintenance and HHS.
The landlord claims: a. Cleaning costs at the end of the tenancy; b. Costs to replace a damaged ceramic stovetop; c. Compensation/exemplary damages for operating a commercial business from the premises.
Both parties provided extensive submissions including a detailed evidence timeline from the tenants, the landlord’s response to this timeline, copies of their correspondence with each other and tradespeople, photos and videos. I confirm that I have reviewed all the material submitted before writing this decision.

Did the landlord comply with their cleaning and maintenance obligations?

A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 1 and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 2
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. 3
Landlords are liable for defects they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire that knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 4 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 s45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is......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...” 5
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation. 6 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair, or the need for repair is apparent from observation. 7 Cleanliness and condition of premises at start of /early in the tenancy (claims 11a, i-iii above)
I accept on the evidence that the exterior of the premises and grounds were not reasonably clean and tidy when the tenancy started. However, the landlord 1 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 3 Section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA 4 Stewart Benson, Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18 5 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 6 See n4 above and Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as LJ Hooker [2015] TT 2845 at [9] and [11] 7 See n4 above and Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey, DC Auckland CIV 2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [47] arranged to tidy the grounds by 17 January 2025. They also advised that washing of the exterior would be deferred to later in the year.
The tenants also reported an issue with a bedroom door lock which was fixed relatively quickly by 22 January 2025.
The garage door belt snapped on 27 February 2025 and was fixed on 6 March. The tenants say that their car was stuck inside the garage but there was no evidence that they advised the landlord of this. Therefore, I consider the time taken to repair the issue was reasonable.
The tenants reported other maintenance issues on 19 March 2025—damage and rotting of garage backdoor, the main front door sticking; windows not closing properly in the 2 upstairs bedrooms with a handle missing from one of the windows; the heated towel rail not working in the main bathroom; and the garage lights not working. These matters were assessed on 2 April when the landlord’s contractor visited. On that day he installed some missing flaps for the handles on some of the windows and later provided quotes for repairing the garage backdoor and replacing window stays on one of the windows. This work was completed on or about 14 May. However, there is no evidence that the towel rail or garage lights were fixed, and the tenants reported that one of the windows remained open and unable to be closed. These matters were fixed much later in the tenancy when other remedial work was undertaken.
Overall, I accept that cleaning and repairs that were evident when the tenancy started should have been completed by the landlord beforehand which is a breach of their obligations under s45(1)(a) RTA. Some of the maintenance issues reported early in the tenancy were dealt with but not in a reasonable time frame. For example, it took the landlord until 14 May to repair the garage back door and replace the window stays—a delay of almost 8 weeks. Some items were not repaired until much later. For example, the heated towel rail was not addressed until the bathroom replacement renovations were completed later in the year. Therefore, I find that most of these repairs were not completed in a reasonable time frame which is a breach of s45(1)(b) RTA.
Overall, I find the above issues were minor in terms of seriousness and impact on the tenants.
For any breach of s45, the Tribunal may consider compensation for the loss of amenity. I address compensation later in the decision after I have determined all the tenants’ claims because there is some overlap of breaches occurring at the same time. It therefore makes sense to consider a global award of compensation taking all proved claims into account. Garage 1 leaks
There is no dispute that water was leaking through the butanol deck into garage 1 below. The garage ceiling beams were wet and mouldy, and the floor was wet. On 19 March 2025, the tenants sent an email to the landlord detailing the garage leak and other maintenance issues referred to above. The landlord’s contractor looked at this leak on 2 April and provided a quote to waterproof the deck. However, the contractor sent the quote to the wrong email address, and the landlord did not receive it until 2 May. The landlord decided to obtain a second quote, which they later accepted. The second quote recommended removal and replacement of the damaged areas of decking membrane; repairing the damaged substrate, then applying a weathertight surface coating. An email from the landlord shows this work was scheduled for 11&12 June. The tenants confirm the work was completed then, some 12 weeks after they reported the leak.
I accept that the leak caused moisture, dampness and mould in garage 1. However, there is no evidence that it affected the living and sleeping areas of the premises, and the tenants could still park a car in the garage.
I find that the landlord failed to remedy this leak within a reasonable timeframe which is a breach of s45(1)(b) RTA and the tenants are entitled to some compensation for the loss of amenity. Bathroom/bedroom 1 leak, power outages and faulty washing machine
The tenants reported water dripping from the upstairs main bathroom into the ground floor bedroom 1 on 5 May 2025. This turned out to be a serious leak that took some time to identify and several months to fix.
Before the above leak was investigated, the tenants experienced a power outage also affecting bedroom 1 on 7 May. An electrician attended on 7 May and briefly restored the power. His invoice records that the hot point circuit in the bedroom was faulty and he isolated the circuit and re-instated power to other areas. The invoice also records the leak into bedroom 1 and a decision to wait until the leak was repaired before tracing out the fault with the hot point circuit.
In the meantime, a further outage occurred on 8 May affecting bedroom 1 downstairs and all the upstairs floor. The tenants remained without power to parts of the house until 14 May, when the electrician discovered that the power outage had been caused by a fault with the washing machine in the upstairs laundry. The machine needed to be replaced. The machine was replaced on 26 May, 19 days after the first outage. However, the tenants were able to use a second washing machine located on the ground floor.
On 14 May, a plumber attended the premises to investigate the leak. His invoice records that he cut open the wall behind the shower to find water leaking from the shower elbow, He replaced the shower elbow and checked it.
Subsequent visits from plumbers, and builders took place to track the source of the leak, investigate the damage caused, and the repairs required. Over the course of the next few weeks, large sections of the walls in the upstairs bathroom and lounge, gib around the ceiling beam running through bedroom 1, and sections of ceiling in bedroom 1 were removed. The ceiling and beam in bedroom 1 were wet and filled with mould. The builders covered the area with plastic. ChemDry was instructed to attend on 26 June with seven fans to dry out the upstairs bathroom and downstairs bedroom, before remedial work could be done.
Unfortunately, further leaking occurred on 27 June. More gib was removed from the upstairs lounge and downstairs bedroom.
On 6 July, the builders and the owners asked to inspect the areas and lifted the bathroom floor. Over the next few days, they also removed more of the ceiling in the downstairs bedroom and more of the wall between the bathroom and lounge so that you could see from the lounge into the bathroom. ChemDry attended again with fans to dry out the areas
On 23 July, Ms Pike emailed the tenants with a timeline for the remedial work now that the areas had dried out and the builder believed the source of the leak had been found. The builder was to water test the shower on 25 July and, provided there was no leaking, it was anticipated that remedial work to the walls, floors and ceilings in the bathroom, lounge and downstairs bedroom would be completed by 1 August.
Unfortunately, the shower water test failed. It was then decided that the upstairs shower must be demolished and rebuilt. Once that work was completed, the builders would reinstall the ceiling in the downstairs bedroom. This work commenced on 5 August and was largely completed by 11 September.
Work to plaster, sand and paint the downstairs bedroom ceiling required the tenant in that room to vacate and was completed during the period 22-27 September. The landlord covered the cost of alternative accommodation for the tenant occupying bedroom 1.
On 3 October, the upstairs shower leaked into the downstairs bedroom again due to a problem with the grouting which was repaired the next week.
The tenants gave evidence that a plumber attending the premises for another exterior leak later in October advised them that he had quoted for leak repairs in 2024 which the owner declined. When the tenants contacted the plumbing firm concerned, they retracted the plumber’s statements claiming that he was confused.
The owner stated in an email dated 4 December 2025 that he lived at the premises for several years and never had an issue with leaks and nor did the previous tenants. He also said that he had no quotes or recommendations for remedial work relating to the leaks prior to this tenancy.
The landlords had also obtained an HHS assessment dated 24 April 2024 attached to the tenancy agreement which confirmed that the premises complied with the moisture ingress and drainage standards.
I consider that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the owner/landlord knew about potential leak problems prior to this tenancy. There is no direct evidence from the plumber who made this statement to the tenants. The evidence from the tenants is hearsay and the maker of the statement cannot be questioned about it. Therefore, it has little evidential value.
Based on the evidence, I accept that the bathroom/downstairs bedroom leak was a latent defect not visible nor reasonably foreseeable by the landlord. The time it took to identify the source of the leak and repair it escalated beyond the reasonable contemplation of the landlord and their contractors. I also consider that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and repair the leaks. Delay was caused due to the complexity of identifying the leak source which is often a process of elimination. It is difficult to find that the landlord is in breach of their obligations under s45(1)(b) RTA regarding the leak. However, the effect of the leak was to cause a loss of amenity in relation to the premises for which the tenants are paying rent. On that basis, the Tribunal may order the landlord to pay to the tenant such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement. 8 It is an implied provision that the tenants are entitled to the full use of all the amenities of the premises for which they are paying rent and they should be compensated for any loss of amenity caused other than through their fault. Upstairs lounge leaks
On 4 July 2025, the tenants reported a new leak entering the ceiling of the upstairs lounge area. On 11 July the leak got worse after heavy rain. The builders erected a tarpaulin over the roof on 12 July. It was subsequently established that part of the roof needed replacement. Roofing materials were ordered and delivered to the site on 14 August, and the roof was installed on 15 August. The builder’s invoice records that they removed the skillion roof over the lounge area including removal of the internal guttering and skylights. New roofing paper, new internal guttering and long run colour steel were installed over this part of the roof along with new colour steel flashings. In the weeks following this, the builders attended the site to complete the remedial work in the bathroom and downstairs bedroom and to reinstate, plaster, sand and paint those rooms and the lounge ceiling. All the work was completed by 20 October. 8 Section 77(1)(n) RTA
I am satisfied on the evidence that the lounge roof leak was also a latent defect not visible nor reasonably foreseeable by the landlord. The landlord took reasonable steps to address the leak in a reasonable time frame. However, the tenants are entitled to compensation for the loss of amenity. Further leaks/moisture problems
On 23 September 2025, the tenants reported another leak that looked to be entering through the window area in the kitchen as they noticed puddles of water on the kitchen bench. A hanging shelf fell off the wall of the lounge on the kitchen side as a result. The builder advised the landlord that the moisture was most likely residual damage from the roof leak and the shelf had been overloaded with plants. The area was later plastered and painted. I note that there is no evidence of any further leaking in this area.
On 1 October 2025, the tenants reported mould on the ceiling of the master bedroom walk-in wardrobe. They were concerned that this was evidence of another leak. The landlord says the builder inspected the area on 10 October including the roof and ceiling cavity. In his opinion, there was no moisture in the area, and he believed the mould was caused through living habits—failing to ventilate the area properly by opening windows and wiping condensation.
The question is whether the walk-in wardrobe mould might have occurred because of the leaks that had already been identified and remedied in the bathroom and lounge upstairs. However, the wardrobe ceiling is some distance away from the locations of both the lounge and bathroom leaks. Furthermore, there is an opening window in the walk-in wardrobe area. Therefore, in the absence of any building defect in the vicinity of the wardrobe ceiling mould, I find it likely that this mould resulted from lack of ventilation by failing to opening windows enough and wipe down condensation.
The tenants subsequently obtained their own Healthy Homes inspection report following an assessment on 13 October 2025. While the report notes mould in the house generally, it does not identify any moisture ingress issues or defects in the above areas.
In summary, I find that there is insufficient evidence of leaks or moisture ingress problems caused by further defects affecting the lounge/kitchen and master bedroom. Therefore, I find no breach of s45(1)(b) RTA by the landlord in relation to the mould on the wardrobe ceiling or the shelf falling off the wall in the lounge. Exterior water pipe leak
Wellington Water issued a notice to fix a private water pipe leak affecting the premises and the neighbouring property. Evidently, water was leaking into the neighbouring property. The landlord’s plumber was instructed to attend on 20 October 2025 to fix the pipe. The work involved digging up concrete with a jack hammer, carrying out repairs, and then laying new concrete. The work was completed by 24 October.
There is no evidence to prove that the burst water pipe was leaking into the premises, and it was fixed quickly once the landlord was notified of the problem. Therefore, I find no breach of s45(1)(b) by the landlord in relation to this issue. However, I accept that the work caused further disturbance for the tenants. Other maintenance issues
On 2 November 2025, the tenants reported other issues as follows—water pressure dropping; hot/cold water temperature fluctuations; upstairs dishwasher leaking; kitchen bin coming off the rails; downstairs toilet flusher issue; water puddle on downstairs step dripping from above; mould in upstairs bedroom that was not removed when the landlord arranged cleaning on 22 October after all the major internal remedial work was completed.
The landlord arranged for a technician to assess the dishwasher, but it was unable to be fixed, and replacement was recommended. This was not done before the tenancy ended on 3 December.
The landlord’s builder removed the kitchen bin doors, but the bin was not fixed before the tenancy ended. They also investigated the other plumbing issues, but no findings were provided. The landlord says that they were waiting for parts.
The landlord says the tenants requested that they leave the dishwasher and kitchen bin items until the tenancy ended, but this is not reflected in written correspondence at the time with the tenants specifically asking the landlord to address these matters in their emails dated 2 and 11 November.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the plumbing issues (dishwasher, toilet and water issues) and kitchen bin issue were validly raised by the tenants and were not fixed prior to the tenancy ending a month after the issues were reported. I consider the failure to repair the issues is a breach of s45(1)(b) for which the tenants are entitled to compensation.
In relation to mould on the master bedroom ceiling, I have already made a finding that it was not caused by a defect with the premises affecting that area and likely resulted from the tenants’ living habits. Therefore, I find that the landlord has not breached their obligations under s45(1)(b) regarding this issue.

What compensation should be awarded?

Having found that the landlord either failed to repair issues in a reasonable timeframe and/or that the landlord is responsible for a loss of amenity suffered by the tenants, I turn to the issue of compensation. It is well accepted when awarding compensation that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Appellate courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering awards. The assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact science, and a commonsense approach is required. There are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount, but the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
The tenants seek rent abatements ranging from 30% to 100% for periods of the tenancy. However, I find that the amounts sought are far too high. I award the following amounts to reflect the loss of amenity: a. For the failure to tidy the grounds—no award as the work was completed on 17 January with no material loss suffered by the tenants; b. For the broken bedroom door lock and garage door belt—no award because they were fixed in a reasonable time; c. For the damaged garage back door; window repairs (fixed by 14 May, 7 weeks after the issues were reported); power outage (fixed on 14 May, 7 days later); time without the main washing machine, taking into account that a second washing machine was available (replaced by 26 May, 19 days later) and leaks into the garage (fixed by 12 June 2025, 12 weeks later) I award one week’s rent of $1,100 which I consider is fair and reasonable. d. For the period of approximately 6 months from 5 May to 24 October, I consider that a 30% abatement of rent should be applied in relation to the loss of amenity suffered due to the leaks affecting the upstairs bathroom, lounge, bedroom 1 downstairs, the exterior pipe leak and the time taken to complete the repairs and remediate the areas. This amounts to $8,580. e. For the remaining issues reported on 2 November—water pressure dropping; hot/cold water temperature fluctuations; upstairs dishwasher leaking; kitchen bin coming off rails; downstairs toilet flusher issue; water puddle on downstairs step dripping from above, that were not remedied before the tenancy ended, I award $200. f. I also consider that other miscellaneous repairs that occurred over the course of the tenancy and took time to resolve are reasonably covered by the above awards.
The total of the above awards is $9,880. However, the tenants have already received a rent abatement of $7,087. Therefore, the balance award is $2,793.
The awards reflect a global approach to compensation recognising that the extent of the loss of amenity was not a constant and differed depending on the dates various jobs were completed, noting that there were also overlapping issues. Importantly, I do not find that the loss of amenity suffered was to the extent that a 60-100% abatement is justified. Such high rent abatement rates would suggest that the property was uninhabitable in which case the tenants would be entitled to give a 2-day notice to end the tenancy. 9 They did not do so and nor was there evidence presented to suggest that the premises were uninhabitable. Were the tenants’ belongings damaged by mould and, if so, is the landlord liable for the replacement costs?
The landlord noted a damp smell in lounge 1 downstairs at the inspection on 8 April 2025. Given the leak in the adjoining garage, and the leak from the upstairs shower discovered subsequently, causing mould and damp on the ceiling in bedroom 1, those defects likely led to the damp smell in lounge 1.
On 2 July 2025, the tenants notified the landlord of mould on high windows in the upstairs lounge; mould in the upstairs office; severe mould on curtains throughout the house but worse in the upstairs master bedroom; mould on the stairs sliding door; severe mould on downstairs bedroom ceiling; mould in main large window in upstairs lounge; excessive mould in the upstairs bathroom; and mouldy blinds in upstairs bedroom. They asked for a rent reduction due to this and other issues. At this stage they did not advise the landlord of any mould damage to belongings.
After the 20 August inspection, the landlord advised the tenants to wipe mould from window frames, sills and glass in the upstairs lounge, upstairs master bedroom and downstairs bedroom 1 and clean blinds in bedroom 1 to remove mould. At that time major works were under way or had just been completed to deal with the leaks affecting those areas.
The tenants responded to the landlord’s inspection notes on 8 September, asking for the landlord to arrange for a professional clean of the premises. They argued that the mould and dirt present at the premises was largely caused by the leaks and the construction works. The tenants did not indicate that any of their belongings were being damaged by mould at this stage. 9 See sections 59 and 59A RTA which set out the grounds for terminating a tenancy when the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement or because of a breach by one party.
The landlord responded on 12 September reminding the tenants of their obligations to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy which included steps to prevent mould such as ventilating the home; wiping condensation and removing mould as soon as it appears. The landlord advised that mould was not solely caused by building work and can also result from everyday living.
The tenants say this response was unreasonable and maintained that they were not responsible for cleaning up damage caused by leaks, water ingress and renovations. They insisted that the landlord have the premises professionally cleaned when the renovations were completed. The landlord finally agreed and arranged commercial cleaning of the premises on 22 October.
On 17 September, the tenants amended their Tribunal application to seek replacement costs for belongings damaged by mould.
Photos were presented at the hearing of the tenants’ belongings.
First, I have already found that the mould on the ceiling in the upstairs walk-in wardrobe likely resulted from lack of ventilation (opening windows) in that area rather than the defects at the premises in other rooms. I also find that mould on belongings in that room likely resulted from the method of storage and lack of ventilation and airflow. Therefore, I dismiss the claim for compensation to replace the tenants’ belongings stored in that room.
In relation to the tenant’s belongings in bedroom 1 (which was directly affected by leaks) I accept that it is more likely that belongings may have been damaged by mould resulting from the leaks. The tenant in this room supplied photos of three pairs of shoes and advised the age of the items as follows— Doc Martin leather shoes-4 years old; New Balance running shoes-1 year old; leather knee high boots-2 years old. However, there was no evidence to establish the age of the items and when purchased, nor evidence as to whether the mould could be cleaned off the items. In particular, the mould spots on the boots and running shoes looks minor and able to be cleaned. The Doc Martins are reasonably old. Any claim for replacement costs would need to be depreciated for fair wear and tear.
In summary, I am not satisfied that the items were damaged by mould such that they could not be cleaned rather than replaced. Even if I am wrong, there is insufficient evidence to establish the age of the items for depreciation purposes. The claims are not proved and must be dismissed.

Has the landlord breached the healthy homes standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard. The compliance date for this tenancy was within 120 days of the commencement date which was 15 May 2025.
The ventilation requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants commissioned a Healthy Homes assessment on 13 October 2025. The assessor completed a report that found the home complied with HHS except in relation to ventilation. In the downstairs self-contained units neither kitchen had extractor fans and the extractor fan in bathroom 2 was not working and needed replacement. It is not clear when this report was disclosed to the landlord and may only have been provided at the first hearing on 26 November 2025, shortly before the tenancy ended.
Attached to the tenancy agreement was a copy of the HHS assessment report completed for the landlord dated 24 April 2024. This report assessed that the property was compliant except for downstairs bathroom 2 needing an extractor fan which was installed prior to this tenancy. This report does not mention the need for extractor fans in the downstairs kitchens at all, nor detail why these kitchens may be exempt from the requirements.
The landlord relied on the HHS report they obtained and assumed, after installing the extractor fan in bathroom 2, that the property was fully compliant.
In relation to the bathroom extractor fan not working, this was not reported to the landlord during the tenancy by the tenants. Therefore, I find that the landlord cannot be held liable for a failure to repair or replace it.
However, I find on the evidence that the landlord is in breach of the HHS ventilation standard because there are no extractor fans in the downstairs kitchens, and there is no evidence that an exemption might apply.

Are the tenants entitled to exemplary damages?

Failure by the landlord to comply with any obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with Healthy Homes standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to $7,200 may be awarded. 10
In this case the tenants proved breaches of s45(1)(b) RTA regarding maintenance issues not fixed in a reasonable timeframe including the garage leak (see paragraphs 26 and 31 above), and failure to comply with the HHS ventilation standard (see paragraph 85 above), which are unlawful acts.
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, 10 Section 45(1A) and schedule 1A RTA having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. 11
I consider that the failure to fix various maintenance issues in a reasonable timeframe was not intentional and an award of exemplary damages is not justified. Overall, the landlord investigated the issues and took steps to remedy the problems, albeit some delay occurred in obtaining quotes and with contractor availability.
Arguably, the failure to comply with the HHS for ventilation was not intentional in that the landlord obtained a professional HHS assessment and relied on it. Conversely, it could be argued that the HHS regulation clearly states that each kitchen in the premises must have an extractor fan installed. 12 Therefore, the issue is whether the landlord may reasonably rely on the HHS report or whether the landlord ought to have questioned why the report did not address the lack of extractor fans in the downstairs kitchens. Should the landlord have made some further enquiry?
On balance, I consider the landlord was entitled to rely on the report regarding compliance with the HHS and the matter of intention is not proved. Therefore, I cannot consider exemplary damages and the claim is dismissed. Has the landlord entered the premises unlawfully and/or breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord entered the premises without consent or the required notice and breached their quiet enjoyment of the premises. They seek compensation for the breaches.
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, repairs and maintenance. 13 However, the definition of premises does not include land or facilities. 14
For carrying out necessary repairs or maintenance, the landlord (or their contractors/agents) may enter the premises at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry. 15 11 Section 109(3) RTA 12 Regulation 23 HHS 13 Section 48(1) & (2) RTA 14 Section 48(7) RTA 15 Section 48(2)(d) RTA
A landlord must also not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 16
The landlord’s right to carry out maintenance or renovations is inconsistent with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. It is a balancing act to determine the level of intrusion or nuisance that a tenant can reasonably expect to endure. The landlord is entitled to carry out maintenance, but those actions can quickly breach reasonable peace, comfort and privacy if they are not well managed. Regardless of whether entry to the premises to carry out work complies with notice requirements, the landlord’s actions may still breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises, particularly where the tenants have no prior knowledge of the work that is going to take place.
There is no dispute that multiple tradespeople attended the premises to investigate the issues and carry out repairs including builders, roofers, plumbers, electricians and ChemDry contractors. For large periods of the tenancy, there was invasive work that was noisy and dusty. The works required considerable communication between the contractors and the tenants to arrange access. The property managers confirmed at the hearing that they mostly relied on their contractors to liaise with the tenants directly for entry and their contractors were aware of the notice requirements and protocols.
The tenants compiled a timeline recording all visits to the property by the landlord and contractors over the course of the tenancy and highlighted instances where they claim contractors turned up with no, or insufficient, notice. They also provided copies of communications with contractors to support their claims. One of the tenants became the primary contact for this purpose and was essentially managing the process and communications for access with contractors. One of the tenants’ main complaints is that the landlord was not managing the project by providing a timeline of works and notices for access required in advance. It seemed to proceed on a more ad hoc basis. This is understandable to an extent because the leaks inside the house were unpredictable and difficult to diagnose. Resolving the leaks was a process of elimination.
Each tenant provided a personal statement outlining the impact of the works. The tenant occupying bedroom 1 who was most affected by the leak into her room stated: This has been so disruptive to my daily life. I get woken up at 8am by contractors knocking on the door, unsure of what work they are here to do on the house.......Most of the time we have no idea who is coming over. I am often home alone, having to answer the door to random men, I do not know........Even attempting to do university work at home is impossible because I have no idea when my peace is going to be 16 Section 38(2) RTA disrupted by power tools or industrial fans and dehumidifiers. I cannot stand the noise......The environment is depressing. It has caused much mental distress on me. We cannot invite friends over.........I am constantly packing and unpacking all my belongings, so they don’t get in the way of these contractors. I have been falling behind in my university......I am in so much constant distress....”
All tenants spoke of the massive disruption caused to their daily lives; the stress and frustration of dealing with the situation; how depressing it became living in the house; and how their work and studies were impacted.
The landlord also provided a response to the tenant’s timeline of visits with supporting evidence from their builder documenting visits to the premises and communications with the tenants. The landlords pointed out some examples where, contrary to the tenants’ claims, proper notice was given; the tenants consented to entry; or the tenants incorrectly recorded a visit.
I have carefully reviewed all the evidence provided and accept that there are occasions where less than 24 hours’ notice was given by contractors, but often the tenants agreed to the proposed time and/or allowed the contractors to enter. Where consent is given to short notice, this is not a breach of s48. For example, the tenants record that they received a text from the builder on 14 July at 2.54pm advising that he would like to work on the shower the next morning. The tenants gave this as an example of insufficient notice for which they seek compensation. However, the actual exchange is as follows: Builder: “I know it’s not 48hrs notice, but I’d like to work on the shower tomorrow for a couple of hours and see how the drying is progressing. Only, if you all are ok with the short notice???? Tenants: “No problem......Thanks for the text. (thumbs up emoji) Do you have a time? Builder: “Yep and 10ish—I know you lot are not early risers!! (laughing emoji) Clearly, consent is given by the tenants.
There are several examples of the tenants giving consent in this manner. However, while the tenants effectively gave consent at times to ensure the jobs got done, I accept that they endured multiple visits by contractors over a period of 6 months, which is breach of their quiet enjoyment in the use of the premises. The builder’s time records alone show that they and their sub- contractors attended the premises on 41 separate days (for 256 work hours) from May to October 2025. In addition, there were multiple attendances by the landlord, ChemDry and other trades. The noise, dust, and disruption, as well as the time spent liaising with multiple contractors who needed access over several months was beyond reasonable. Tenants are expected to put up with a degree of noise and general nuisance when maintenance issues arise and require remedy by a landlord but, in this case, I accept that the length and degree of the intrusion significantly impaired the quality of the tenancy.
In summary, I consider that access by the contractors and the resulting interference in the tenants’ use of the premises is more appropriately treated as a breach of quiet enjoyment under s38 because often the tenants allowed contractors to enter at short notice which is consent under s48.

Should compensation be awarded?

I have already awarded compensation for loss of amenity relating to the use of areas of the premises while the works were conducted. The issue is whether to award anything further to compensate for loss such as the impact of the construction noise, dust; continuous disruption, the tenants’ time liaising with contractors over a lengthy period and the intangible loss such as the mental distress, frustration and annoyance that resulted.
Tenants v Singh 17 provides some useful guidance regarding damages for intangible loss. The Tribunal considered previous case law which described the range of emotional harm damages awarded in the Tribunal as falling within three bands. Singh determined that these bands should be revised upwards as follows: a. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. b. Where due to the breach, the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. c. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.
Taking all matters into consideration, I consider that the frustration, inconvenience and mental distress suffered by the tenants is aptly described in band b. Therefore, I order the landlord to pay each tenant $1,000 making a total award of $4,000 for the breach of quiet enjoyment.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 18
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The owner cleaned over a period of 2 days and seeks cleaning 17 Tenants v Singh [2022] NZTT 4315225, at [125] 18 Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA costs of $580. The claim excludes cleaning of carpets and curtains. The landlord provided photos taken before the tenancy started and after the tenancy ended. The landlord also arranged a commercial clean of the premises on 22 October 2025 to restore the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition after the major construction and repair works had been completed. However, the landlord did not have photos of the premises after that cleaning was done to establish the condition of the premises at that point.
The tenants argue that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy, and they produced their own photos taken at the start. They also say that the cleaning commissioned by the landlord on 22 October did not address all the dirt and mould caused by the leaks and resulting building work. However, they paid for commercial cleaning at the end of the tenancy. I note that the invoice they provided appears to show that only the upstairs areas were cleaned.
I have compared the tenants’ photos at the start of the tenancy with the photos taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. I find that the premises were not left in the same condition but in a worse state that was not reasonably clean and tidy, However, I also accept that the landlord cannot prove the condition of the premises after the commercial cleaning they arranged on 22 October 2025 because no photos were taken. The scope of the 22 October cleaning detailed in the contractor’s invoice was to vacuum and/or wipe floors, skirtings, windowsills and framing, door tracks and surfaces to remove dust and dirt, and clean mould on ceilings and walls, in all the rooms of the house. The end of tenancy photos shows cleaning issues that are outside the scope of those works. Therefore, I hold the tenants liable for cleaning to that extent as follows: a. Bedroom 2-unit downstairs—belongings and debris left on floor; Blu-tak spots on walls; dirt inside cupboards; food debris in fridge/freezer; grease and dirt inside the oven; grease spots on wall and splashback; shower glass and dome not clean of soap scum; toilet bowl not clean; washing powder residue in washing machine; b. Bedroom 1 unit downstairs—dirt in kitchen cupboards; stains on mattress protector; shower glass not clean of soap scum; c. Main kitchen upstairs—Blu-tak on fridge door, debris inside fridge/freezer; interior oven and racks not clean d. Laundry upstairs—Fluff in dryer filter; washing machine soap tray not clean.
I award the landlord $300 for their time attending to the above cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 19
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. 20
The tenants accepted that the ceramic hob in one of the downstairs kitchens was cracked at the end of the tenancy and required replacement. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. The replacement amount sought is reduced to the insurance excess limitation.

Did the tenant use the premises for a commercial and/or unlawful purpose?

The RTA specifically envisages that premises may be used for both commercial and residential purposes. 21 However, the tenant must ensure that the premises are occupied principally for residential purposes. 22 The determination of this in each case will be a matter of degree and depend on the specific facts.
The RTA also provides that a tenant must not use the premises for any unlawful purpose. 23 Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $1,800. 24
The landlord seeks compensation of $10,000 plus exemplary damages on the basis that one of the tenants was operating a car sales operation from the premises without the landlord’s consent and likely in breach of local authority laws regarding zoning and use, making it an unlawful purpose.
The issues to determine are: Did the tenant operate a commercial business from the premises; Was the landlord’s consent required? Is the business an unlawful activity? Is the landlord entitled to compensation or exemplary damages? Landlord case 19 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 20 Section 49B(3)(a) RTA 21 Section 2(3) RTA 22 Section 40(1)(b) RTA 23 Section 40(2)(b) RTA 24 Section 40(3A) and schedule 1A RTA.
The property manager says that they were unaware that the tenant was operating a business from the premises as opposed to simply working from home. The owner was only alerted to this when visiting the premises in July 2025, seven months into the tenancy.
The business involved bringing vehicles to the premises for grooming; parking the vehicles at the premises; advertising the vehicles for sale with photographs taken in the Owhiro Bay area; and having customers attend the premises to view the vehicles and complete purchase transactions. The landlord produced copies of online advertising of the vehicles. A letter from a neighbour was provided after the tenancy had ended complaining about the additional vehicles parked in the public parking spaces at Owhiro Bay which affected parking for visitors.
The landlord advised the tenant by email on 15 July 2025 that operating a business from a residential property without the landlord’s explicit written consent was a potential breach of the tenancy agreement and may invalidate the landlord’s insurance policy exposing both parties to financial and legal risk. They asked for confirmation that the tenant was not conducting a business from the premises and/or to cease.
The tenant replied on 23 July explaining the nature of the business and formally requested the landlord’s consent to continue subject to any agreed conditions. He also expressed the view that his use of the premises was not a breach of the tenancy agreement.
By email on 24 July, the landlord advised as follows: “Should you wish to continue to operate your business, the owner is willing to receive a proposal from you in relation to this, which may result in a variation to the tenancy agreement. Please advise the terms that you would like this considered.”
The tenant messaged the landlord on 24 July stating: “As for the business operation, what does the owner expect in a proposal? I would like to ask for his permission to continue working from home and would like to review if there’s any changes in his insurance policy. Please let me know if he wants more information from me.” The landlord did not reply.
The landlord maintains that this business may have invalidated the landlord’s insurance cover over the property which does not cover commercial activities at the property; and the activity was not permitted by local authority use and zoning laws. The landlord’s insurance policy was not provided and nor did the landlord produce any specific evidence that local authority zoning or use laws had been breached by the tenant. Tenant case
Before the tenancy commenced, the tenant says he disclosed his self- employment in the flat CV submitted to the landlord. The CV states that the tenant runs a successful car business; that he has been growing a car dealership which has become his full-time job; and he is a director of a company which develops websites and apps. The CV does not say he intends to run this business from the premises. The tenant believes that he explained to the property managers that he was self-employed and working from home.
The business is a small, low-volume motor vehicle trading business which is primarily administrative and online in nature. It does not involve a showroom, workshop, staff, signage or regular customer attendance at the premises. The tenant buys trade-in vehicles from his suppliers. He sends the vehicles to a mechanic for checking and they are then delivered to the tenant at home. He stored the vehicles in the driveway and occasionally in the garage. Sometimes he cleaned the vehicles at the premises. He advertised the vehicles online for purchase stating “viewings in Owhiro Bay” without including the address of the premises. Prospective customers would message the tenant and occasionally view the vehicle at the property and complete the documentation required for sale and purchase. The tenant had set up an office in one of the garages.
After the landlord raised concerns in July, the tenant no longer parked the vehicles at the premises but used public parking spaces in Owhiro Bay or stored them with a mechanic off site. Grooming of the cars was done off-site and vehicle handovers were conducted away from the premises. He also changed the registered address of the business which had been the address of the premises.
The tenant sold 1-2 cars/week. The vehicles were often shipped sight unseen and the average time he owned the vehicles was 7 days. Discussion and findings
I find on the evidence that while the tenant may have advised the property manager that he was working from home, it was not clear that he was operating a second-hand car sales business from the property with the vehicles initially parked and sometimes cleaned at the premises. He should have disclosed the nature of the business in detail to the landlord so that they had a proper opportunity to check that the business operation did not breach any laws or insurance cover. Therefore, I consider the landlord’s consent should have been obtained.
Despite the business, I find that the premises were being occupied by the tenants principally for residential purposes because all four tenants occupied the premises as their home. The car sales business was not the principal use of the premises. I find that the tenants are not in breach of s40(1)(b).
The landlord provided no evidence as to the terms of the owner’s insurance policy and whether the business would have invalidated the policy, and nor did they provide specific evidence of a breach of any local authority use and zoning laws.
I accept that there are rules which apply to a person selling vehicles from their home. Wellington City Council guidelines published online provide that a home business must be small-scale and operated by a resident on-site. Home business activities don’t need resource consent if they meet the criteria for the activity within the zone the resident lives in. Some of the rules include: a. No more than 4 people may work in the home business at any one time; b. You cannot use more than a third of the total floor area of any buildings on site for the home business activities; c. You cannot create any dust nuisance on site; d. The home business cannot involve the use of trucks or other heavy vehicles; e. The home business cannot include the repair, alteration, restoration or maintenance of motor vehicles; f. You cannot conduct retailing on the site (with some exceptions); g. There are signage rules.
I also note that the tenant might need to be a legally registered motor vehicle trader (if he is not already), depending on the number of vehicles sold within a 12-month period.
It does not appear that the tenant’s business was in breach of the rules at least from July 2025, because from that point onwards he kept the vehicles off- site and conducted the sales transactions off site so that there were no customer visits to the premises.
In summary, I find that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the operation of the business amounted to using the premises for an unlawful purpose.
In any event, the landlord has not established the basis for any loss suffered because of the activity that would justify an award of compensation such as increased insurance premiums or any damage or nuisance caused.
For the above reasons, the claim is dismissed.
As the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims overall, I suppress their names and identifying details as requested and award reimbursement of the filing fee. The bond is also refunded in full to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317939 — Property damage at 68 Owhiro Bay Parade, Owhiro Bay, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317939 — Property damage at 68 Owhiro Bay Parade, Owhiro Bay, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their cleaning and maintenance obligations?

What compensation should be awarded?

Has the landlord breached the healthy homes standards?

Are the tenants entitled to exemplary damages?

Should compensation be awarded?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Did the tenant use the premises for a commercial and/or unlawful purpose?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their cleaning and maintenance obligations?

What compensation should be awarded?

Has the landlord breached the healthy homes standards?

Are the tenants entitled to exemplary damages?

Should compensation be awarded?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Did the tenant use the premises for a commercial and/or unlawful purpose?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions