What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331819 about?

The tribunal order states: Both applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5331819?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331819?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331819?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12659289-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331819 about?

The tribunal order states: Both applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5331819?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331819?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331819?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12659289-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat A, 126 Bethells Road, Waitakere, RD 1, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331819 — Healthy homes

Order

Both applications are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $920.00 (6496460-006) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately. Attendance:
Both parties attended the hearing in Waitakere. Background:
This tenancy commenced on 21 October 2023 and concluded on 18 May 2025. The evidence provided by both parties indicates that the tenancy was managed informally but in good faith.
The property is a lifestyle block comprising two residential tenancies and one commercial tenancy. During the tenancy, the water tank became damaged. The landlord contends that the damage was caused by the tenant and seeks compensation for this.
This incident appears to have disrupted the previously cooperative relationship between the parties. The tenant implied that they felt their informal and accommodating approach to the landlords casual property management was taken advantage of and they are seeking redress of this.
The landlord seeks $4,014.48 in compensation for: a) The cost of a replacement water tank; and b) The labour associated with the installation of the new water tank on site.
The landlord asserts that the damage to the water tank was caused by the tenants during the course of the tenancy and that the cost of replacement and installation was reasonably incurred as a result of that damage.
The tenants seek $500.00 for each of the following alleged breaches, totalling $2,000.00: a) Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. b) Breach of quiet enjoyment, arising from inadequate notice given for repairs, maintenance, and landlord visits to the property. c) Failure to repair or replace the damaged water tank within a reasonable time, resulting in a four-day period without access to water. d) Stress and inconvenience associated with bringing this application and responding to the landlord’s claim for compensation relating to the water tank. The Burden of Proof:
In assessing the claims of both parties, I must apply the civil burden of proof. In all proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal, the usual civil law standards and expectations apply. This means that it is for the party bringing the claim to establish their case on the balance of probabilities, that is, to show that what they assert is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents, and photographic evidence are important tools in discharging this burden.
As observed by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: “...anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.”
I am not required to be completely certain in reaching my decision; rather, I must be more certain than uncertain. In determining each claim, I must consider all of the evidence presented, including any oral testimony given at the hearing, and weigh that evidence to decide what is more likely to have occurred.

Is the tenant liable for the replacement of the water tank?

The landlord states that they do not believe the damage to the water tank was caused by falling trees. They say that tradespeople who attended the property suggested that someone may have jumped on the tank. However, the applicant was unable to provide any explanation as to why the tenant might have done so, or any evidence that would persuade me that they had.
The tenant has provided text messages exchanged at the time between themselves and a neighbour, indicating that a tree had fallen on the water tank and that it may have been damaged as a result.
Ultimately, I am unable to reach a finding as to how the damage occurred. The applicant seeks compensation for the full replacement cost of the water tank. To make such an award, I would need to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that is, more than 50%, that the tenant intentionally caused the damage. I am not satisfied that this has been established.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord commit unlawful acts and are exemplary damages applicable?

Exemplary damages are a financial penalty imposed by the Tribunal for certain deliberate and serious breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), known as unlawful acts. They are intended to punish the wrongdoer and to deter similar conduct in the future.
Exemplary damages are only awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally and if it is just to do so, having regard to the effect of the act, the interests of the parties, and the public interest. The amount of exemplary damages is capped by law and is not intended to compensate for loss, but to penalise the conduct.
In addition to unlawful acts having being done intentionally, breaches of quiet enjoyment may only incur exemplary damages if the breach is intentional and amount to harassment not just a technical breach.
This principle was confirmed in Maria Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora [NZDC 7003], where the District Court held that exemplary damages are not available for a simple breach of quiet enjoyment unless it rises to the level of harassment.
The tenants allege several unlawful acts for which they seek exemplary damages.
The first alleged breach relates to the landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord was required to comply within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord was notified of the issue, being the absence of a heating source, on the fourth day of the tenancy and installed a heat pump within one month of that notification. Accordingly, there was no breach, and certainly no intentional failure to comply. Once made aware, the landlord took immediate steps to achieve compliance.
This alleged breach relates to the landlord’s attendance at the property for repairs and maintenance. The tenant has provided text messages between the parties showing coordination of these visits. The communications are cordial and reflect cooperation. The tenant has stated that, despite this, they felt pressured and reluctant to object for fear of harming the relationship. While this may reflect a subjective perception, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the landlord was aware of, or intended, such discomfort. Without intentional conduct amounting to harassment, this claim cannot succeed.
The tenant states that the water became brown and that they were without supply for several days. The landlord states that the tank had emptied and that they took immediate steps to have it refilled, which I accept. The text messages show that the tenant advised they would manage in the meantime and that they had sufficient water. This indicates the landlord was not aware of any urgent need, and there is no evidence of intentional conduct that would constitute an unlawful act.
The tenant also seeks exemplary damages for the stress and inconvenience associated with bringing this application and responding to the landlord’s claim. While it is accepted that the Tribunal process can be stressful, both landlords and tenants are entitled to bring applications under the RTA. The exercise of this right cannot, in itself, give rise to exemplary damages.
For the

Reasons

above, the tenants claims are dismissed. The bond:

The bond is the property of the tenant, held in trust by the Bond Centre as security for the landlord, to be available at the conclusion of the tenancy should there be any outstanding costs.
In the absence of a valid claim, the bond must be returned to the tenant. As both the landlord’s and the tenants’ claims have been dismissed, and the tenancy has now concluded, there is no lawful basis for the bond to be retained.
The landlord has confirmed that they have no further claims. Accordingly, the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenant. Filing fee and suppression:
Both applications have been dismissed. Accordingly, no orders are made for reimbursement of the filing fee, and no orders for name suppression are granted.

Order

Both applications are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $920.00 (6496460-006) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately. Attendance:
Both parties attended the hearing in Waitakere. Background:
This tenancy commenced on 21 October 2023 and concluded on 18 May 2025. The evidence provided by both parties indicates that the tenancy was managed informally but in good faith.
The property is a lifestyle block comprising two residential tenancies and one commercial tenancy. During the tenancy, the water tank became damaged. The landlord contends that the damage was caused by the tenant and seeks compensation for this.
This incident appears to have disrupted the previously cooperative relationship between the parties. The tenant implied that they felt their informal and accommodating approach to the landlords casual property management was taken advantage of and they are seeking redress of this.
The landlord seeks $4,014.48 in compensation for: a) The cost of a replacement water tank; and b) The labour associated with the installation of the new water tank on site.
The landlord asserts that the damage to the water tank was caused by the tenants during the course of the tenancy and that the cost of replacement and installation was reasonably incurred as a result of that damage.
The tenants seek $500.00 for each of the following alleged breaches, totalling $2,000.00: a) Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. b) Breach of quiet enjoyment, arising from inadequate notice given for repairs, maintenance, and landlord visits to the property. c) Failure to repair or replace the damaged water tank within a reasonable time, resulting in a four-day period without access to water. d) Stress and inconvenience associated with bringing this application and responding to the landlord’s claim for compensation relating to the water tank. The Burden of Proof:
In assessing the claims of both parties, I must apply the civil burden of proof. In all proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal, the usual civil law standards and expectations apply. This means that it is for the party bringing the claim to establish their case on the balance of probabilities, that is, to show that what they assert is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents, and photographic evidence are important tools in discharging this burden.
As observed by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: “...anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.”
I am not required to be completely certain in reaching my decision; rather, I must be more certain than uncertain. In determining each claim, I must consider all of the evidence presented, including any oral testimony given at the hearing, and weigh that evidence to decide what is more likely to have occurred.

Is the tenant liable for the replacement of the water tank?

The landlord states that they do not believe the damage to the water tank was caused by falling trees. They say that tradespeople who attended the property suggested that someone may have jumped on the tank. However, the applicant was unable to provide any explanation as to why the tenant might have done so, or any evidence that would persuade me that they had.
The tenant has provided text messages exchanged at the time between themselves and a neighbour, indicating that a tree had fallen on the water tank and that it may have been damaged as a result.
Ultimately, I am unable to reach a finding as to how the damage occurred. The applicant seeks compensation for the full replacement cost of the water tank. To make such an award, I would need to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that is, more than 50%, that the tenant intentionally caused the damage. I am not satisfied that this has been established.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord commit unlawful acts and are exemplary damages applicable?

Exemplary damages are a financial penalty imposed by the Tribunal for certain deliberate and serious breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), known as unlawful acts. They are intended to punish the wrongdoer and to deter similar conduct in the future.
Exemplary damages are only awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally and if it is just to do so, having regard to the effect of the act, the interests of the parties, and the public interest. The amount of exemplary damages is capped by law and is not intended to compensate for loss, but to penalise the conduct.
In addition to unlawful acts having being done intentionally, breaches of quiet enjoyment may only incur exemplary damages if the breach is intentional and amount to harassment not just a technical breach.
This principle was confirmed in Maria Cavanagh v Kāinga Ora [NZDC 7003], where the District Court held that exemplary damages are not available for a simple breach of quiet enjoyment unless it rises to the level of harassment.
The tenants allege several unlawful acts for which they seek exemplary damages.
The first alleged breach relates to the landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord was required to comply within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord was notified of the issue, being the absence of a heating source, on the fourth day of the tenancy and installed a heat pump within one month of that notification. Accordingly, there was no breach, and certainly no intentional failure to comply. Once made aware, the landlord took immediate steps to achieve compliance.
This alleged breach relates to the landlord’s attendance at the property for repairs and maintenance. The tenant has provided text messages between the parties showing coordination of these visits. The communications are cordial and reflect cooperation. The tenant has stated that, despite this, they felt pressured and reluctant to object for fear of harming the relationship. While this may reflect a subjective perception, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the landlord was aware of, or intended, such discomfort. Without intentional conduct amounting to harassment, this claim cannot succeed.
The tenant states that the water became brown and that they were without supply for several days. The landlord states that the tank had emptied and that they took immediate steps to have it refilled, which I accept. The text messages show that the tenant advised they would manage in the meantime and that they had sufficient water. This indicates the landlord was not aware of any urgent need, and there is no evidence of intentional conduct that would constitute an unlawful act.
The tenant also seeks exemplary damages for the stress and inconvenience associated with bringing this application and responding to the landlord’s claim. While it is accepted that the Tribunal process can be stressful, both landlords and tenants are entitled to bring applications under the RTA. The exercise of this right cannot, in itself, give rise to exemplary damages.
For the

Reasons

above, the tenants claims are dismissed. The bond:

The bond is the property of the tenant, held in trust by the Bond Centre as security for the landlord, to be available at the conclusion of the tenancy should there be any outstanding costs.
In the absence of a valid claim, the bond must be returned to the tenant. As both the landlord’s and the tenants’ claims have been dismissed, and the tenancy has now concluded, there is no lawful basis for the bond to be retained.
The landlord has confirmed that they have no further claims. Accordingly, the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenant. Filing fee and suppression:
Both applications have been dismissed. Accordingly, no orders are made for reimbursement of the filing fee, and no orders for name suppression are granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331819 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat A, 126 Bethells Road, Waitakere, RD 1, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331819 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat A, 126 Bethells Road, Waitakere, RD 1, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the tenant liable for the replacement of the water tank?

Did the landlord commit unlawful acts and are exemplary damages applicable?

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Is the tenant liable for the replacement of the water tank?

Did the landlord commit unlawful acts and are exemplary damages applicable?

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions