What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5319819 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 5319819?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain wi…: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Owed To 1/7/2025: $342.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5319819?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5319819?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12801942-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5319819 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 5319819?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain wi…: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Owed To 1/7/2025: $342.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5319819?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5319819?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12801942-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5319819 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5319819 — net $957.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent owed to 1/7/2025	$342.86		Rent owed to 1/7/2025
Compensation: Failure to maintain window		$900.00	Failure to maintain window
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$400.00	the landlord to pay $50 per month in compensation for the 8-month period, being $400.00.
Total award	$342.86	$1,300.00
Net award		$957.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$957.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $957.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord claim for water charges is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants rented a 5-bedroom home from the landlord and lived there with their children for approximately 18 months from the end of 2023 until mid 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disputes the amount of rent and water arrears claimed and has filed a counter claim for the following: breach of the landlord obligations to maintain and comply with Healthy Homes Standards and breach of quiet enjoyment. Landlord claims

Does the tenant owe rent at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord has applied for rent of $1542.86 to the end of the tenancy being 1 July 2025. A rent summary has been provided.
The tenant disputed the rent summary for two reasons; firstly, the tenant claimed that some payments had been missed by the landlord, secondly the tenant disputed the start date recorded.
The adjudicator spent some time going through the rent summary and the payments questioned by the tenant were accounted for by the landlord.
The rent summary records that the tenancy commenced on 18 December 2023, but the tenants disputed this start date.
The tenancy agreement records the start date of the tenancy as 25 December 2023. The tenant stated that as it was Christmas Day the landlord allowed them 3 days rent free and they moved in on the previous Friday.
At the hearing the property manager accepted the start date as recorded in the tenancy agreement.
The rent owed is therefore $342.86 and this amount is ordered.

Is the tenant liable for outstanding water charges?

Section 39 of The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the landlord is responsible for all outgoings that apply whether or not the premises is occupied. That is why the landlord is responsible for fixed charges on the water bills. The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the tenancy premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or the tenant’s use of the facilities.
In his decision in Woollams v Simpson CIV 2005-004-1583 16/3/2006 in the District Court in Auckland, Judge McElrea, observes that there is an implied term in a tenancy agreement that the landlord ought to provide accounts to the tenant at regular intervals so as to enable payment to be made. At paragraph 13 he states “... in my view, the implied term which I read into the Act and into this agreement is necessary in order to make the clause a workable one from a commercial point of view, and in order to decide this matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case [as provided by s85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986].
In the facts of this case the tenant claimed they were not supplied with regular water bills and after six months received a large bill and after another six months received another large bill. They have paid some money towards water but dispute the amount claimed by the landlord as there was an ongoing toilet leak from the beginning of the tenancy that was not repaired until February 2025.
The water statement provided by the landlord records that there were seven different amounts all charged to the tenant on 22 July 2024. The only evidence the landlord could provide regarding following up water payments was in January 2025.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for the outstanding water for the following reasons: (a)The water charges were not invoiced to the tenant regularly and the tenant was sent seven invoices on the same date, therefore, the tenant did not have an opportunity to check the usage as it was invoiced by Watercare and query any irregularities. (b)The landlord failed to take active steps to address the non-payment of water until January 2025. (c)The landlord failed to repair the toilet leak for over twelve months, which affected the water usage at the premises. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the outstanding water is exclusively attributable to the tenants’ usage.
The claim for outstanding water charges is dismissed. Tenant claims Did the landlord breach their obligations pursuant to section 45 of the Residential

Tenancies Act 1986?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord has obligations including that they must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to health and safety.
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the premises and comply with the Healthy Homes requirements as there was a leak in the window of their daughter’s bedroom due to a large crack in the window which was there from the commencement of the tenancy.
There is no specific Healthy Homes standard that refers to cracked windows, however, there is a clear responsibility on landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and the existence of the crack was evident from the start of the tenancy.
The tenant stated that the crack was in their daughter’s bedroom and it impacted the use of the room as water came through the crack when it rained and they could not have the bed near the window as they were concerned for their daughter’s safety if the window broke.
The landlord acknowledged that the window needed repair but stated that there were issues with getting the work done as scaffolding was needed. The landlord acknowledged that the repair was done after the tenants moved out of the premises.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair by failing to repair the cracked window for the 18-month tenancy.
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Rather than out of pocket expenses the Tenants’ claim for compensation is in the nature of general damages for the inconvenience and loss of amenity of having an ongoing issue with the window resulting in water ingress and safety concerns. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make such award pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act: Eayrs v Hindmarsh, DC Wellington, TT223/93, 12 November 1993. Awards of compensation are generally modest. I find that the delay in repairing the window affected the tenants’ use of and enjoyment of their daughter’s bedroom and award an amount of $50 per month for the 18 month delay, being $900.00 in compensation. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord placed the premises on the market for sale in October 2024. The tenant claims that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment due to ongoing requests to make the home available for viewings by prospective purchasers.
The tenants stated that they understood their responsibility not to unreasonably withhold consent so only refused consent for a birthday party and when one of their children was in hospital. They advised that the rest of the time they sought to accommodate the landlord as they understood the owner was in financial difficulty. The tenants stated that they requested viewings on the weekend and the landlord agreed but that there were requests to change viewings to weekdays at short notice which they felt they had to agree to. They advised that viewing took place weekly.
The tenants provided copies of text messages where the landlord texted requesting viewings the next day, cancelled arranged viewings and sought to reschedule.
The tenant advised that they have three children with special needs and that disruption to their schedule was unsettling. In addition, the tenant stated that the ongoing pressure to have the premises tidy each week for viewing was stressful.
The landlord confirmed that the premises were on the market for the last eight months of the tenancy and advised that they have now sold. The property manager stated that they sought to accommodate the tenants and rescheduled when the tenants stated that a viewing time was not suitable.
In considering this claim the Tribunal takes in to account that landlords are entitled to market their premises for sale; however, this has to be balanced with the tenant right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. Having considered the evidence I find on these facts that the length of time being eight months of weekly viewings amounted to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act. I find that the tenant’s privacy and enjoyment of the premises was breached during the eight months of viewings to prospective purchasers and order the landlord to pay $50 per month in compensation for the 8-month period, being $400.00.
Because both parties have had some success with their claims, I make no order regarding reimbursement of either filing fee and suppress all party identifying details as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5319819 — net $957.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent owed to 1/7/2025	$342.86		Rent owed to 1/7/2025
Compensation: Failure to maintain window		$900.00	Failure to maintain window
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$400.00	the landlord to pay $50 per month in compensation for the 8-month period, being $400.00.
Total award	$342.86	$1,300.00
Net award		$957.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$957.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $957.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord claim for water charges is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants rented a 5-bedroom home from the landlord and lived there with their children for approximately 18 months from the end of 2023 until mid 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disputes the amount of rent and water arrears claimed and has filed a counter claim for the following: breach of the landlord obligations to maintain and comply with Healthy Homes Standards and breach of quiet enjoyment. Landlord claims

Does the tenant owe rent at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord has applied for rent of $1542.86 to the end of the tenancy being 1 July 2025. A rent summary has been provided.
The tenant disputed the rent summary for two reasons; firstly, the tenant claimed that some payments had been missed by the landlord, secondly the tenant disputed the start date recorded.
The adjudicator spent some time going through the rent summary and the payments questioned by the tenant were accounted for by the landlord.
The rent summary records that the tenancy commenced on 18 December 2023, but the tenants disputed this start date.
The tenancy agreement records the start date of the tenancy as 25 December 2023. The tenant stated that as it was Christmas Day the landlord allowed them 3 days rent free and they moved in on the previous Friday.
At the hearing the property manager accepted the start date as recorded in the tenancy agreement.
The rent owed is therefore $342.86 and this amount is ordered.

Is the tenant liable for outstanding water charges?

Section 39 of The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the landlord is responsible for all outgoings that apply whether or not the premises is occupied. That is why the landlord is responsible for fixed charges on the water bills. The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the tenancy premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or the tenant’s use of the facilities.
In his decision in Woollams v Simpson CIV 2005-004-1583 16/3/2006 in the District Court in Auckland, Judge McElrea, observes that there is an implied term in a tenancy agreement that the landlord ought to provide accounts to the tenant at regular intervals so as to enable payment to be made. At paragraph 13 he states “... in my view, the implied term which I read into the Act and into this agreement is necessary in order to make the clause a workable one from a commercial point of view, and in order to decide this matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case [as provided by s85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986].
In the facts of this case the tenant claimed they were not supplied with regular water bills and after six months received a large bill and after another six months received another large bill. They have paid some money towards water but dispute the amount claimed by the landlord as there was an ongoing toilet leak from the beginning of the tenancy that was not repaired until February 2025.
The water statement provided by the landlord records that there were seven different amounts all charged to the tenant on 22 July 2024. The only evidence the landlord could provide regarding following up water payments was in January 2025.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for the outstanding water for the following reasons: (a)The water charges were not invoiced to the tenant regularly and the tenant was sent seven invoices on the same date, therefore, the tenant did not have an opportunity to check the usage as it was invoiced by Watercare and query any irregularities. (b)The landlord failed to take active steps to address the non-payment of water until January 2025. (c)The landlord failed to repair the toilet leak for over twelve months, which affected the water usage at the premises. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the outstanding water is exclusively attributable to the tenants’ usage.
The claim for outstanding water charges is dismissed. Tenant claims Did the landlord breach their obligations pursuant to section 45 of the Residential

Tenancies Act 1986?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord has obligations including that they must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to health and safety.
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the premises and comply with the Healthy Homes requirements as there was a leak in the window of their daughter’s bedroom due to a large crack in the window which was there from the commencement of the tenancy.
There is no specific Healthy Homes standard that refers to cracked windows, however, there is a clear responsibility on landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and the existence of the crack was evident from the start of the tenancy.
The tenant stated that the crack was in their daughter’s bedroom and it impacted the use of the room as water came through the crack when it rained and they could not have the bed near the window as they were concerned for their daughter’s safety if the window broke.
The landlord acknowledged that the window needed repair but stated that there were issues with getting the work done as scaffolding was needed. The landlord acknowledged that the repair was done after the tenants moved out of the premises.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair by failing to repair the cracked window for the 18-month tenancy.
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Rather than out of pocket expenses the Tenants’ claim for compensation is in the nature of general damages for the inconvenience and loss of amenity of having an ongoing issue with the window resulting in water ingress and safety concerns. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make such award pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act: Eayrs v Hindmarsh, DC Wellington, TT223/93, 12 November 1993. Awards of compensation are generally modest. I find that the delay in repairing the window affected the tenants’ use of and enjoyment of their daughter’s bedroom and award an amount of $50 per month for the 18 month delay, being $900.00 in compensation. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord placed the premises on the market for sale in October 2024. The tenant claims that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment due to ongoing requests to make the home available for viewings by prospective purchasers.
The tenants stated that they understood their responsibility not to unreasonably withhold consent so only refused consent for a birthday party and when one of their children was in hospital. They advised that the rest of the time they sought to accommodate the landlord as they understood the owner was in financial difficulty. The tenants stated that they requested viewings on the weekend and the landlord agreed but that there were requests to change viewings to weekdays at short notice which they felt they had to agree to. They advised that viewing took place weekly.
The tenants provided copies of text messages where the landlord texted requesting viewings the next day, cancelled arranged viewings and sought to reschedule.
The tenant advised that they have three children with special needs and that disruption to their schedule was unsettling. In addition, the tenant stated that the ongoing pressure to have the premises tidy each week for viewing was stressful.
The landlord confirmed that the premises were on the market for the last eight months of the tenancy and advised that they have now sold. The property manager stated that they sought to accommodate the tenants and rescheduled when the tenants stated that a viewing time was not suitable.
In considering this claim the Tribunal takes in to account that landlords are entitled to market their premises for sale; however, this has to be balanced with the tenant right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. Having considered the evidence I find on these facts that the length of time being eight months of weekly viewings amounted to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act. I find that the tenant’s privacy and enjoyment of the premises was breached during the eight months of viewings to prospective purchasers and order the landlord to pay $50 per month in compensation for the 8-month period, being $400.00.
Because both parties have had some success with their claims, I make no order regarding reimbursement of either filing fee and suppress all party identifying details as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5319819 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5319819 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe rent at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant liable for outstanding water charges?

Tenancies Act 1986?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe rent at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant liable for outstanding water charges?

Tenancies Act 1986?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions