What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327939 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Dpm Property

How much money was awarded in case 5327939?

Compensation: $3,449.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: For Lack Of Heating: $600.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327939?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327939?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12890795-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327939 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Dpm Property

How much money was awarded in case 5327939?

Compensation: $3,449.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: For Lack Of Heating: $600.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327939?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327939?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12890795-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Peel Street, Mornington, Dunedin 9011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327939 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327939 — net $2,849.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for stump & tree removal	$3,449.00		Compensation for stump & tree removal
Compensation: for lack of heating		$600.00	for lack of heating
Total award	$3,449.00	$600.00
Net award	$2,849.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,849.00

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Dpm Property Group Limited As Agent For Charles Houston Elton $2,849.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The application by the tenant for further compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.

The application by the landlord for further compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended both hearings.

On 18/8/2025 the tenant sought compensation of $10,000.00, exemplary damages for breach of sections 45 and 138B and work orders.

A hearing was held on 16/10/2025 and to avoid an adjournment because further evidence was needed, the dispute was referred to mediation.

On 3/11/2025 the landlord made an application for compensation of $24,334.00 for removal of stumps and replacement of trees cut down by the tenant.

Following mediation on 27/11/2025 the parties agreed, and confirmed at this hearing that the matters remaining in dispute were: a. Replacement of trees with new ones and the associated costs, b. Water pressure issues, c. Inadequate heating during a period of the tenancy.

The fixed term tenancy began on 28/8/2024 and has been renewed to end on 26/8/2026 at a weekly rent of $580.00.

Unfortunately, and although both parties wanted the tenancy to end early, they were unable to agree at the hearing on the details of how this should happen. Standard of proof

This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means both parties must establish, with evidence, that their respective claims are more likely than not.

The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.

Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.

Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at both hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.

The onus is on the applicants to provide the necessary evidence to support their claims. If they fail to do so then the applications will be dismissed, whether they have merit or not. Tenant Claim

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

The tenant submitted there were multiple maintenance issues reported to the landlord during the tenancy which were never or only partly resolved.

The tenant was particularly concerned with the hot temperature of the water and very low water pressure.

In addition, the tenant suggested the landlord failed to comply with healthy homes standards for heating because they were without a properly working heat source from 21/4/2025 until a new heat pump was properly installed on 16/10/2025.

On the other hand, the landlord suggested a plumber had looked at the water issues on 22/11/2024, and in January and November 2025 and provided an email confirming that the water pressure was consistent with a low pressure system.

The landlord submitted that when they became aware of the issue with the gas heater, they asked a gas fitter to undertake repairs and his invoice of 31/8/2025 confirmed the heater was working after the services between 23 April and 28 August 2025.

The landlord suggested it was not until the healthy homes inspector undertook an assessment on 22/8/2025 that they became aware the gas heater was not working properly.

Despite the lack of advice from the tenant the landlord accepted that the heater had not worked properly for some time and offered compensation of $600.00 being a reduction of rent for six weeks at $50.00 per week.

In support of their position the landlord provided healthy homes assessment standards compliance reports dated 30/4/2021, 22/8/2025 and 13/11/2025.

Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).

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

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. ii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

As the tenancy began on 28/8/2024 the compliance date for this tenancy was 26/12/2024.

I find there is no breach by the landlord of the obligations set out in section 45(1)(b) to 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.

While the tenant’s frustration with the low water pressure is understandable low water pressure is not unusual in older properties which do not have high pressure hot water cylinders installed. There is no requirement in the legislation for installation of such cylinders.

Further, the evidence from the plumber and landlord confirms that the taps and shower head are working properly.

Nor do I consider there has been a breach of section 138B.

While the gas fire installed in the premises did not have a thermostat Regulation 9(d ) only relates to thermostats in electric heaters and heat pumps.

Although the tenant was without an adequate heat source for several months, I am satisfied that the landlord was not aware of that fact and acted immediately when they found out about the problem.

Under section 40(1)(d) a tenant shall notify a landlord of any need for repairs.

However, I consider it reasonable in the circumstances of this case that the landlord has offered compensation for the heating issues and have awarded the $600.00 offered.

The landlord has not committed any unlawful acts, and exemplary damages are not available to the tenant.

The claim for further compensation fails. Landlord claim

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

The landlord sought compensation of $24,334.00 for two trees deliberately cut down by the tenant as follows: a. $1,449.00 for stump removal b. $22,885.00 for replacement of two approximately 25 year old trees.

The landlord submitted that the tenant cut down two mature trees near the boundary with the neighbour without their knowledge or consent.

In response, the tenant submitted that they had notified the landlord in November 2024 about possible tree pruning to let in more light. When the landlord had done nothing at the time the neighbour approached them, they removed the two trees because of concerns about damage to the neighbour’s property.

Although they were issued a warning letter when the landlord found out about the tree removal, they felt the issue had been resolved because their tenancy was renewed soon afterwards.

The tenant believed the claim for compensation was in retaliation for their claims.

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

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

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

There is no dispute that the tenant cut down two trees in April 2025 at the request of the neighbour but without the knowledge or consent of the landlord.

I find the tenant caused damage to the premises.

However, I consider the amount claimed by the landlord for replacement of the trees is unreasonable.

While the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off, this is not possible when looking at the replacement costs of trees.

The landlord did not plant the trees and the calculation of age by the arborist is an approximation.

There is no evidence about the condition of the trees, the likely lifespan or that they were listed as significant on the District Plan.

However, there is evidence that the trees were causing an issue for the neighbour and were likely to be pruned by the landlord.

I consider an award of compensation is reasonable in the circumstances because although the breach by the tenant was intentional, it was the result of a sense of frustration with the delay in pruning and the appeal from a neighbour.

Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.

I have awarded the costs of removal of the stumps and a nominal amount towards replacement of the trees.

No filing fee is awarded because both parties were party successful, and the filing fees effectively cancel each other out.

No suppression is available to the tenant pursuant to section 95A because they were only partly successful.

The landlord did not ask for suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327939 — net $2,849.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for stump & tree removal	$3,449.00		Compensation for stump & tree removal
Compensation: for lack of heating		$600.00	for lack of heating
Total award	$3,449.00	$600.00
Net award	$2,849.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,849.00