Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5331779 — Tenancy dispute at 65 Wordsworth Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102
Decided 16 Dec 2025 · Published 16 Dec 2025 · Application 5331779
- Compensation
- Filing Fee
- Leaks
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- Baath Rentals Ltd must pay Narasimha Reddy Allu and Swathi Kapuiuru $105.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
- The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and compensation.
- The landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
- Prior mediation was unsuccessful.
- A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
- The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
- In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Bond
- Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.
- As the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Compensation
- The tenant sought $2,500.00 compensation for landlord failures to maintain and interference with quiet enjoyment. Failure to maintain
- It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA.
- Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
- The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe.
- The tenant issued a Notice to Remedy on 25 April 2025 regarding ongoing issues that had existed since the start of his tenancy. While delayed, the issues raised were resolved bar pest control that the tenant claims were never addressed. At this time the pest cited was cockroaches.
- In support the tenant provided a photo of one on the ceiling. No other evidence of any actual infestation was available.
- While unresolved to the satisfaction of the tenant, no application to the Tribunal followed at that time regarding any landlord failure to remedy. The matter is raised now after the tenancy ended.
- In January 2025 the tenant experienced a water leak/flood after what he claimed was a rodent eating through a plastic water pipe. The leak was repaired promptly but the tenant raised again in March 2025 an ongoing issue with the rats still entering through a gap in the under-sink cupboard from the down piping. The tenant claimed while the leak was repaired, the cause – being rats – was not. The landlord claims the repairer at the time did not observe evidence of rat activity.
- The gap was repaired in March 2025, but the tenant claimed the rodent problem remained ongoing after that and that he experienced continued noise and mess from them. The landlord stated they had a pest controller attend in March, but they said no evidence of pests was found by the contractor at that time, be it rat or cockroach.
- There is a duty to mitigate (see section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 1 ). Consideration of mitigation of loss is a factual one and depends here on: a. Whether the tenants took all reasonable steps to mitigate their loss; and b. More particularly, whether they acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
- I asked the tenant what, if any, pest trap had been set and any pest caught during the tenancy. He responded he did not use any traps or poison as he 1 Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. was concerned about his one-year daughter and possible harm to her. I struggle to reconcile the claimed significant and ongoing impacts from pests with what would seem ample opportunity to lay traps without such risk (for example, in closed cupboards or at night). A further benefit from this trapping would have been better photographic evidence of any significant and ongoing pest problem; something absent here.
- The tenant was unhappy with the responsiveness of the landlord regarding maintenance. Having heard both submissions and the limited evidence, I consider there was a disconnect between tenant expectations as expressed in messages, and the statutory obligations of the landlord.
- Given the limited evidence for the above claims, I do not find the tenant has been able to evidence the landlord has failed, tenant dissatisfaction notwithstanding, in any such a way that specific compensation for any failure to maintain should be ordered. 2 Quiet enjoyment
- The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
- The tenancy ended by tenant notice. It was sent to the landlord but due to an error with their email system, it was not actioned. It was only near the end when the tenant contacted them about the exit and associated tasks that they realised.
- The initial stance of the landlord was that the tenant was liable for rent in arrears as expressed in an email on 17 July 2025. The sequence of messaging that day was disputed but subsequentially, on 28 July 2025 the landlord sent a proposed bond refund form with only one day of rent and water rates to be deducted from the bond.
- The tenant disputed the one day (claimed due to a delay in key return) but did not dispute the water rates. He raised with the landlord their failure to credit back the electricity used from the back unit.
- The initial demand of rent arrears of $1,671.43 by the landlord was wrong given the tenant had served notice. It was later corrected to the still disputed one day on 28 July 2025 so by the date of the application, 25 August 2025, the disputed amount of any rent arrears had been greatly reduced from that initially stated on 17 July 2025.
- While the tenant sought compensation for these issues at the end of the tenancy, and afterwards for the effort and stress in requiring them to lodge their application I conclude as I did with the claims for failures to maintain that the 2 The issues at commencement, and the rent holiday granted at the time are not considered here. landlord performance, while lacking in places, does not meet the threshold for specific compensation orders. Electricity
- The tenant was the customer for the property electricity account. A separate dwelling at the back consumed electricity under this agreement but a sub-meter accounting process saw the tenant credited back after suitable calculations. The final electricity account and subsequent credit back had not been applied. It totalled $77.22. This is due to the tenants and is awarded. Summary
- The tenant was clearly frustrated with the landlord performance and there appear to be some grounds for this. The challenge in this application has been the lack of evidence of significant impact. I accept the messaging as detailed by the tenant but the actual impact, and landlord approach to each notice, is not sufficient to establish specific landlord liability for failures that should be compensated. The landlord made some management errors, but I do not find sufficient evidence to consider further compensation should be ordered. Filing fee
- Because Narasimha Reddy Allu, Swathi Kapuiuru has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed their filing fee.