What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318681 about?

The tribunal order states: The Landlord must pay $347.14 to the Tenant, as calculated below.

How much money was awarded in case 5318681?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318681?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12536984-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318681 about?

The tribunal order states: The Landlord must pay $347.14 to the Tenant, as calculated below.

How much money was awarded in case 5318681?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318681?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12536984-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 99 Kohimarama Road, Kohimarama, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5318681 — Rent arrears

Order

The Landlord must pay $347.14 to the Tenant, as calculated below.
The Bond Centre shall release the bond of $1,800 (BN-00072370) to the Tenant.

Reasons

Background

The parties entered into a 12-month fixed term tenancy in April 2025. That tenancy ended early, on 4 September 2025.
The Tenant now seeks compensation and exemplary damages. She says the heat pump in the living area did not work at the start of the tenancy and the Landlord failed to promptly repair the heat pump, meaning the Landlord: (a)failed to maintain the premises; (b)committed an unlawful act by failing to promptly repair the heat pump; (c)made a false statement in the tenancy agreement by saying that the premises were compliant with Healthy Homes Standards requirements; (d)failed to ensure that all chattels were in working order at the start of the tenancy; and (e)interfered with her quiet enjoyment by failing to repair the heat pump.
The Tenant also says the Landlord failed to: (a)adequately maintain the premises because: (i)the pipes beneath the kitchen sink leaked; (ii)the bathroom heater did not work; and (iii) the water in the shower was low pressure and cold. (b)provide safe access to the premises; (c)ensure that the premises were clean at the start of the tenancy; and (d)remedy issues with the premises within a reasonable time.
The Landlord has filed a cross claim and wants to recover rent arrears and a fixed term break fee.
The Tenant appeared at the hearing and was represented by her daughter and son-in-law. The Landlord, Ms Luw-Oliver, also appeared. She was assisted by representatives from Barfoot and Thompson, who she has recently instructed to manage the property. In this decision, I have treated submissions made by those representing and assisting the parties as being submissions made by that party. The issues
The issues I need to determine in this case are: (a)Did the premises comply with Healthy Homes Standards? (b)Did the Landlord make an incorrect statement in the tenancy agreement about compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards? (c)Did the Landlord fail to maintain the premises? (d)Did the Landlord breach any of her obligations relating to safe access to the premises? (e)Did the Landlord fail to provide the premises in a clean and tidy state? (f)When did the tenancy end? (g)What remedy is the Tenant entitled to? (h)Is the Landlord entitled to recover rent arrears and the fixed term break fee?
The Tenant’s application and submissions identified alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) that are irrelevant to this claim. For example, the Tenant alleged that the Landlord breached: (a)Section 39(2) of the RTA, which relates to the Landlord’s responsibility for rates, insurance premiums and body corporate levies. Despite this allegation, there was no evidence of any breach of this obligation. (b)Section 40(1)(c) of the RTA, which relates to the Tenant’s responsibility for keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy. A Landlord cannot breach a Tenant’s obligation.
The Tenant’s daughter confirmed that she had used AI to help generate her submissions, which has led to these irrelevancies being included. In this decision I have only considered the provisions of the RTA that are relevant. I have not considered those irrelevancies.

Did the premises comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Subject to some exceptions, that do not apply here, residential tenancy premises must comply with Healthy Homes Standards in force at the relevant time. 1 The Healthy Home Standards include a requirement that a landlord must provide one of more fixed heaters that can directly heat the main living room. The heater or heaters must meet the minimum heating capacity for each room.
On about 10 June 2025 (more than six weeks after the start of the tenancy), the Landlord engaged Oncore Auckland Central to conduct a healthy homes assessment. A Certificate of Compliance relating to that inspection records that the main living room required 6.4kW heating capacity. The heat pump installed in the living area had a 5.8kW capacity, which was insufficient to meet Healthy Homes Standards requirements. Oncore Auckland Central then installed a panel heater with a 1kW heating capacity to ensure compliance with the heating standard.
I therefore find that the premises did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards at the start of the tenancy because the installed heat pump did not meet the heating requirements in the heating standard.
However, the Landlord was not required to comply with that Healthy Homes Standard until 1 July 2025. The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(bb). Standards) Regulations 2019 provide that, where a tenancy is entered into after 2 March 2025 (as this one was), the premises did not need to comply until 1 July 2025. 2 So, although the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, the Landlord had no obligation to comply with those standards before that date. Did the Landlord make an inaccurate statement about Healthy Homes

Standards compliance?

Although the premises did not need to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards at the start of the tenancy, the Landlord was still required to include a statement in the tenancy agreement as to compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. 3
The tenancy agreement contains a statement where the Landlord attests that the premises did comply with the Healthy Homes Standards at the start of the tenancy. As set out above, the premises did not comply.
The Landlord says that she thought the premises complied with the heating standard. She says that Quaser Electrical Ltd, which installed the heat pump, measured the room and said the heat pump was sufficient. She says that she also spoke to a property manager friend, who agreed. She says that she only discovered that the heating was insufficient following the Oncore Auckland Central assessment.
I accept the Landlord’s evidence on this point. But her signed statement in the tenancy agreement was nonetheless inaccurate. The premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards because the heat pump did not comply with the heating standard. I therefore find that the Landlord made an inaccurate statement in the tenancy agreement as to Healthy Homes compliance.

Did the Landlord fail to maintain the premises?

A Landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 4 The heat pump
The main heater in the living area was the 5.4 kW heat pump. The heat pump was not working at the start of the tenancy.
The Tenant told the Landlord that the heat pump was not working properly on 24 April 2025, two days after she had moved in. The Landlord called Quaser Electrical the following day. She says that an electrician from Quaser Electrical visited on 25 April 2025, but was unable to get into the premises as the tenant 2 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, Schedule 1, clause 2 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 13(1CA). 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(b). was not home. The electrician observed that the heat pump box outside had been damaged.
The Landlord says that she next contacted the electrician on 26 April 2025, who advised her that he had ordered some parts, which would take some time to arrive. The Landlord tried to contact the electrician on three further occasions between 1 and 12 May 2025, without success. The Landlord was finally able to contact the electrician on 22 May 2025, and he advised that he was overseas.
In the meantime, the Landlord contacted another electrician to repair the heat pump. She says that she was told by that electrician that she should use the original electrician who installed the heat pump.
The Landlord then waited for the electrician to return from overseas. The electrician first returned to the premises on 26 May 2025, before finally returning to repair the heat pump on 3 June 2025. The parties provided an Inspection Report and invoice from Quaser Electrical, which notes that the heat pump had a gas leak. Quaser Electrical refilled the R32 gas and the heat pump then worked as usual.
The Landlord says that, during this time, the Tenant did not ask for an additional heater, so she assumed that she was not too cold. The Landlord says that the situation was out of her control because she was advised to used Quaser Electrical and the electrician was overseas.
The evidence shows that the heat pump was faulty at the start of the tenancy and the Landlord took about five weeks to repair that fault. There was no other heating in the main living area of the premises during that time. The Landlord says that the heating was not required at that time because of warm weather. The Landlord also says that the Tenant did not ask for replacement heating to be provided.
I disagree with the Landlord’s submission. Adequate heating is essential in all residential premises, and it was incumbent on the Landlord to ensure that adequate heating was available to the Tenant. She did not for the period between 22 April and 3 June 2025.
I therefore find that, due to the heat pump fault at the start of the tenancy, the absence of any other heating and the length of time it took to repair the heat pump, the Landlord has failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The Tenant also alleges that the heat pump fault and the delayed repair amounted to a breach of her right to quiet enjoyment. 5 I agree. The Landlord’s failure to first provide adequate heating and then to remedy that problem within a reasonable time was an interference in the tenant’s reasonable comfort in the use of the premises. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(2). The leaking kitchen sink pipe
The Tenant says that the pipes beneath the kitchen sink leaked from the start of the tenancy. She advised the Landlord of the leak on 7 May 2025. On 4 June 2025, the Landlord arranged for a handyman to inspect the leak. The Landlord advised the Tenant that the issue was not significant.
A different handyman returned on 12 June 2025. It seems that the handyman put silicon around a pipe joint, which did not fix the leak. That handyman returned on about 25 June, and silicon was again used. That attempted repair did not fix the leak.
On 14 July 2025, the Tenant advised the Landlord’s property manager that the leak had reduced but was still there. The property manager arranged for a different plumber, who then replaced the leaking pipes on 29 July 2025. The Tenant says that this repair has fixed the leak.
I am satisfied that this evidence demonstrates that the Landlord has failed to adequately maintain the premises. The evidence shows that the pipes beneath the sink leaked from early in the tenancy. It should not have then taken more than two and a half months for the Landlord to fix that leak, during which time the Tenant bore responsibility for containing and cleaning up the leak.
Although there has been a failure to maintain, I am not satisfied that the leaking kitchen sink breaches the right to quiet enjoyment, as alleged by the Tenant. It was a small leak and any inconvenience to the Tenant was minor at most. The bathroom heater
There was a heater attached to the bathroom wall. The Tenant says that the heater did not work. It only blew cold air. The Landlord agrees. She says that she only realised that the heater was not working until the Tenant complained. The Landlord did not repair or replace the heater.
I am satisfied that the faulty bathroom heater is a breach of the obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenancy agreement states that the premises had a “heating system” in addition to the heat pump. Although the agreement does not specify what that system is, I consider that a reasonable person would believe that it was a reference to the other heating sources in the premises, excluding the heat pump.
The bathroom heater was one of those heating sources. It did not work, and the Landlord appears to have made no effort to fix it during the tenancy. The low pressure and cold water in the shower
The Tenant advised the Landlord on 30 April that the water pressure in the shower was very low. She also complains that the water temperature was cool – about 20 degrees.
Beside the shower is a louvre window. There seem to be small gaps in the louvre window, which made the bathroom cold. The Tenant says that the low water pressure and water temperature made it unpleasant to shower, so she drove to a nearby swimming pool to shower and wash her hair.
The Landlord inspected the shower on about 1 May 2025 and says that she found that the Tenant had turned off the water heater cylinder, which in her view explains why the water temperature was low. The Landlord also says that the water pressure appeared okay.
It seems the Tenant continued to raise concerns, so the Landlord arranged for the shower head to be changed on 4 June 2025. The Tenant says that the water pressure improved but was still low. On 29 July 2025, a plumber changed the shower head and replaced pipes. The water flow has improved.
Nonetheless, I am not satisfied that the Tenant has proven that the Landlord has breached any of her obligations due to the water pressure or water temperature.
I accept the Landlord’s evidence that she found the hot water cylinder had been turned off by the Tenant, which explains why the Tenant was complaining of cool water on 30 May 2025. The Tenant did not challenge the Landlord’s evidence on this point, and in the absence of any other evidence demonstrating low water temperature, I find the Tenant has not proven that the water temperature was too low.
I also find that the Tenant has not proven that the water pressure was too low. The Tenant presented a video from 1 June 2025, before the shower head was changed and pipes replaced. That video shows the water pressure was adequate. The water pressure was certainly not strong, but neither was it so inadequate that I could reasonably find that the Landlord has breached any of her obligations.

Did the Landlord breach any of her obligations relating to safe access?

A landlord must: (a)provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; 6 and (b)comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any law that applies to the premises. 7
The Tenant says that the Landlord has breached those obligations by failing to provide safe access to the premises. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(b). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(c).
The Tenant says that, when she inspected the premises, the front door was open, and she thought that the front door would be the main entry. It was not. She says that the Landlord provided a key to the back door only, meaning her only access to the premises was down a narrow path to the rear of the premises. The Tenant says that the path was partially blocked by bins and boxes and flooded following heavy rain, including on 27 June 2025. The Tenant says that one night she tripped over the boxes and fell at night. She was not hurt.
The Tenant says the path was also unlit. She says that there was an external light, but the light switch was inside the unit, and she was reluctant to turn the light on before she left the house because of the cost of power.
The Tenant has provided photographs of the path, including photographs showing water covering the path partially blocked by bins and boxes. The bins are for the Tenant’s use.
The Tenant says she verbally raised concerns about the access to the rear door shortly after she moved in. The first written correspondence occurred on 30 May 2025. The Landlord removed the boxes on 1 June 2025 and Landlord installed solar lights beside the driveway on 5 June 2025. The Tenant also says that the Landlord agreed to provide a key to the front door but did not do so until 25 June 2025.
The Landlord largely disagrees with the Tenant. She considers that the access to the rear door is safe. The Landlord agrees that the path flooded on 27 June 2025 and says that she engaged Ace Drain Unblocking on 2 July 2025 to clear any drain blockage that may have contributed to the flooded driveway. Ace Drain Unblocking used a hydro jet to unblock the drain.
Having consider the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Tenant has proven that the Landlord breached any of her obligations relating to access to the premises because: (a)The Tenant could access the premises through the rear door, so the Landlord was not obliged to provide a key to the front door. (b)The access to the rear door was safe. Although the bins and boxes partially covered the path, it remained wide enough to provide safe access to the premises. (c)The path to the rear door was lit. The Tenant chose not to use that light to save the cost of the electricity. (d)The path did flood, but only due to a temporarily blocked drain. The Landlord cleared that drain as soon as the concern was raised with her. (e)The Tenant has not pointed me to, and I have not found, any requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety that apply to these premises that has been breached.

Did the Landlord fail to provide the premises in a clean and tidy state?

The Landlord was required to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 8 The Tenant says the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy and produced photographs.
Those photographs show that the dishwasher was dirty, belongings of the previous occupant had been left behind, the top of kitchen cabinet doors and the inside of drawers were dirty, and part of the walls, ceilings and doorframes were dirty, perhaps mouldy, and required cleaning.
The Landlord’s property manager says that the Tenant viewed the premises on three occasions and the premises were in the same condition as during those viewings. The Landlord also says that she was not given a reasonable opportunity to clean the house before the Tenant did so.
The Landlord’s explanations are no defence to the Tenant’s claim. A Tenant cannot consent by silence to moving into unclean premises and the Landlord’s failure to provide clean premises cannot be excused by the Tenant then cleaning the premises herself. I am satisfied that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy, as demonstrated by the photographs produced by the Tenant.
The Tenant also says that the Landlord agreed to commercially clean the carpet but did not. There is no such obligation in the RTA or in the tenancy agreement between the parties. I therefore find that the Tenant has not proven that the condition of the carpet was also a breach of the Landlord’s obligations.

When did the tenancy end?

The end date of the tenancy is relevant to the Tenant’s claim for exemplary damages and the Landlord’s rent arrears and break lease fee claims.
The Tenant says that the tenancy ended on 22 August 2025. The Tenant had given three weeks’ notice on 1 August 2025. The Tenant says she was entitled to terminate the tenancy early due to the Landlord’s breaches of her obligations under the RTA. The Landlord says the Tenancy ended on 4 September 2025, when the replacement tenant moved in.
A fixed term tenancy can be terminated early only by: (a)mutual consent; 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(a). (b)Tribunal order for serious breach, 9 uninhabitable premises, 10 or unlawful premises; 11 (c)assignment with consent; 12 (d)death of the sole tenant; 13 (e)following an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances that has caused severe hardship; 14 or (f)family violence 15 or physical assault. 16
None of those circumstances have occurred here. There was no mutual consent, the Landlord’s breaches of the RTA are not sufficiently serious to justify early termination, the premises remained lawful and habitable and there was no unforeseen change in the Tenant’s circumstances sufficient to justify early termination.
I therefore find that the Tenant was not entitled to terminate the tenancy early. Instead, the tenancy ended on 4 September 2025, when the Landlord found a replacement tenant.

What remedy is the Tenant entitled to?

Early termination

As set out above, the Tenant was not entitled to terminate the tenancy early. In particular, I note that although the Landlord breached some of her obligations under the RTA, she had remedied most of those issues (other than the bathroom heater) by the time the Tenant sought to terminate the tenancy, and those issues, separately and cumulatively, were insufficient to warrant early termination of the fixed term tenancy. Exemplary damages
The Landlord has engaged in the following unlawful acts: 17 (a)failure to provide an accurate Healthy Homes compliance statement; 18 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56. 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 59. 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 78A. 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 43B. 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 50A. 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 66. 15 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56B. 16 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 55AA. 17 Unlawful acts are defined in the Residential Tenancies Act. Not all breaches of the Act are unlawful acts, only those specified in the Act. 18 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 13(1F)(a). (b)failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair due to the issues with the heat pump, kitchen sink and bathroom heater; 19 and (c)failure to provide the premises in a clean and tidy state.
The proven breach of quiet enjoyment relating to the heat pump is not an unlawful act because the circumstances of that breach do not amount to harassment. 20
The Tenant seeks exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are intended to punish and are only available for unlawful acts that are committed intentionally. 21 The Tribunal must be satisfied that the person (in this instance the Landlord) has “turned their mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it”. 22
I am not satisfied that any of the Landlord’s unlawful conduct was intentional for the following reasons: (a)I accept the Landlord’s evidence that, relying on advice from her electrician and a property manager friend, she thought the premises did comply with the Healthy Homes Standards at the start of the tenancy. (b)The Landlord did not know of the heat pump fault, kitchen sink leak and faulty bathroom heater at the start of the tenancy, and although she should have had those issues remedied sooner, her failure to do so was not intentional. Also, both the kitchen sink leak and faulty bathroom heater were minor issues for which exemplary damages would not have been appropriate. (c)The evidence does not show that the Landlord deliberately set about to provide the premises in an unclean state. She was certainly negligent in failing to comply with her obligations, but I am not satisfied that her conduct was deliberate.
I therefore decline to award exemplary damages. Compensation
The Tenant is entitled to compensation for the Landlord’s failures to provide the premises in a clean and tidy state and to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The Tenant has not produced evidence of any financial cost arising from the Landlord’s failures. However, I am satisfied that the Tenant has suffered inconvenience and harm because of those failures, so compensation is justified. 19 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A). 20 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(3). 21 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 109(3). 22 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Ltd NZDC 17767.
I consider that the outcome that does justice to the parties in this case is an order reducing the rent by $90 per week (which is 20 per cent of the total rent) from the start of the tenancy until 3 June 2025, when the heat pump was repaired. This is a period of six week or 42 days. That was the main period of inconvenience and discomfort for the Tenant.
I think a rent reduction of $90 per week for six weeks is a proportionate reduction. The Tenant paid $450 per week to rent the premises. She moved into the premises expecting adequate heating, given the Landlord’s statement that the premises complied with Healthy Homes requirements. The premises did not have adequate heating because the heat pump did not work. I am satisfied that the Tenant suffered significant inconvenience and loss of comfort as a result.
I am also satisfied that this rent reduction is sufficient to recognise the cumulative harm suffered to the Tenant because of all the Landlord’s failures to comply with her obligations under the RTA. I therefore award a total of $540 compensation to the Tenant for the harm and inconvenience caused by all the Landlord’s failures to comply. The Landlord’s claim - rent arrears and break fee
As I have found above, the tenancy ended on 4 September 2025. The Landlord says that the Tenant owes rent arrears of $192.86 for the period between 2 September and 4 September 2025.
The Landlord produced a rent summary, which shows rent arrears of $192.86. I accept that evidence and order the Tenant to pay that amount to the Landlord.
The Landlord also seeks to recover the costs incurred in the breaking the fixed term tenancy.
A Landlord is entitled to recover any expenses reasonably incurred in re-letting premises where it accepts the early termination of a fixed term tenancy. 23 A landlord who seeks to recover such expenses must first provide an itemised account of those expenses to the tenant. 24
The Landlord has not provided an itemised invoice. Its invoice simply says “Break Lease Expense (Discounted)”. That is insufficient to comply with the requirement that the invoice must be itemised. The Landlord did provide a more itemised estimate of the costs, but that was an estimate, not the invoice listing the actual costs. The Landlord’s claim for the re-letting fee is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Neither party has substantially succeeded in their claims, so I make no order for the payment of filing fees. Likewise, I make no orders for name suppression. 23 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 44A(1) 24 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 44A(2).
I must make an order suppressing the name of any person who is wholly or substantially successful. Neither party was wholly or substantially successful.
I may also make suppression orders where it is in the interests of the parties and the public interest to do so. The starting point is a presumption of open justice – that the names of parties will be published unless there are good reasons not to.
I see no such good reasons in this case. I heard no evidence that would lead me to grant suppression due to the personal circumstances of either party, and neither is there anything in this decision that could reasonably cause disproportionate harm or embarrassment. I therefore decline to make suppression orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318681 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 99 Kohimarama Road, Kohimarama,

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318681 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 99 Kohimarama Road, Kohimarama,

Order

Reasons

Did the premises comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Standards compliance?

Did the Landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the Landlord breach any of her obligations relating to safe access?

Did the Landlord fail to provide the premises in a clean and tidy state?

When did the tenancy end?

What remedy is the Tenant entitled to?

Property management

Order

Reasons

Did the premises comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Standards compliance?

Did the Landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the Landlord breach any of her obligations relating to safe access?

Did the Landlord fail to provide the premises in a clean and tidy state?

When did the tenancy end?

What remedy is the Tenant entitled to?

Property management