What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336901 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 5336901?

Compensation: Pool Top-Up: $1,480.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336901?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13626360-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336901 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 5336901?

Compensation: Pool Top-Up: $1,480.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336901?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13626360-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336901 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336901 — net $1,480.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Pool top-up	$1,480.00	Pool top-up
Net award	$1,480.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,480.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336901 — net $1,480.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Pool top-up	$1,480.00	Pool top-up
Net award	$1,480.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,480.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,480.00 immediately, as per below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 24 April 2026.
The tenancy was from 14 July 2023 until 22 July 2025. At the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenant’s claims were for: a. Window locks, condensation, and mould: The tenant claimed the property was fitted with poor-quality window locks which made it difficult to ventilate the home properly. This caused ongoing condensation, leading to mould forming on the windows and curtains. This posed health concerns and required repeated cleaning and replacement of household items. b. Water supply and septic tank issues: The tenant claimed that the property suffered from ongoing problems with both the water supply and the septic tank system. These issues resulted in unreliable water access and unpleasant living conditions, which significantly impacted the wellbeing and daily comfort of the tenant’s household. c. Driveway conditions and property damage: The tenant claimed that the driveway was in very poor condition throughout the tenancy. Despite raising this issue, it was not adequately addressed. The unsafe surface caused damage to the tenant’s property which the tenant believed the landlord should be held responsible. d. Exit report and bond refund: The tenant claimed that they were subjected to an unfair exit report. They contained inaccurate claims, and the agent engaged in false processes that unnecessarily delayed the release of the bond. This caused financial and emotional stress well beyond what would be considered reasonable. e. Pool maintenance: The tenant claimed $1,480.00 to fill the pool due to a leak and reimbursement of $777.00 to fix the pool boiler. f. Lawn maintenance: The tenant claimed for reimbursement of additional fortnightly mowing done by the tenants in addition to the monthly mowing done by the landlord.
The tenant also outlined a number of issues to which were responses to the claims raised by the landlord during the exit process. However, as the landlord did not make any cross-application to retain the bond, those issues are not addressed in this order. The bond was already refunded to the tenant by the time of this hearing.
The tenant’s claims were based on section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
If the landlord has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest.
The party seeking exemplary damages cannot apply 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act under section 109(2)(b) RTA.
I consider each claim in turn. Window locks, condensation and mould
The landlord responded to the tenant’s claim stating that the windows were functional and compliant. The landlord said that condensation itself was not an automatic breach of the RTA or the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”).
The landlord stated that the tenant has a duty to ventilate the property and to manage moisture through their own behaviour by opening windows and using extractor fans.
There was no evidence that proved that the premises suffered from condensation and mould issues to the point of requiring compensation. As such, this claim is dismissed. Water supply and septic tank issues
In July 2023, the tenant engaged their own contractor to carry out works creating an additional parking space. These works caused damage to underground water pipes. The damage was not immediately apparent to the parties.
The tenant experienced a period of poor water quality while the source of the problem remained unidentified.
Once the underground pipe damage was identified, it was repaired in October 2023 via an insurance claim under the owner’s policy. In the intervening period, the owner incurred various costs attempting to investigate and resolve the water quality issue. The landlord did not seek compensation for those costs from the tenant. The tenant did pay the landlord’s insurance excess for the repair of the underground pipe.
During the tenancy, when the tenant raised issues with the septic system, the landlord sent specialist cleaning companies on 5 separate occasions, with one further visit to replace the pump. The landlord provided records of multiple water tank services, refills, and pump replacements during the tenancy. Various gutter cleans were also undertaken.
The tenant claimed that the water was brown and was not drinkable even after the issues from 2023. However, there was no email or any 14-day notices that informed the landlord that the water was brown since then. There was no water testing or any other evidence to prove that the water was not drinkable.
I find that the landlord had reasonably maintained the water supply and the septic tank during the tenancy.
I dismiss this claim. Driveway conditions and property damage
The landlord responded to this claim by stating that the driveway was in a reasonable condition for a rural property. It was not a concrete driveway as found in an urban home but reasonable for the rural premises.
The tenant claimed that a mail delivery driver was refusing to drive up the driveway to deliver mail given the conditions of the driveway. The tenant also claimed that their Mustang was damaged due to the condition of the driveway.
From the photos provided of the driveway, I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that the driveway was in an unreasonable state of maintenance and repair. I find nothing unusual in its conditions.
It is unclear from the photos that the condition was such that it would have caused damage to a car. If there were multiple cars that suffered from same or similar damage from the same area, there may have been more cause for concern from the Tribunal. However, I do not find that the tenant has proven this claim to the required standard. Exit report and bond refund
The landlord responded to this claim by stating that the bond was processed promptly and that any delay in release was outside the landlord’s control.
The tenant vacated the property on 23 July 2025 and the bond refund form was sent to the tenant on 30 July 2025 noting that the bond was to be refunded in full to the tenant. The tenant returned the form with only 1 signature instead of 2 signatures. On 31 July 2025, the landlord submitted that form to the Bond Centre.
However, there was a delay with the bond refund due to there not being both of the tenants’ signatures on the bond form. When the tenant sent the from with the second signature on 12 August 2025, it was promptly re-sent to the Bond Centre on 13 August 2025 and the bond was released by the Bond Centre on 2 September 2025.
The issue with the bond was not to do with any issues raised by the landlord against the tenant during the exit process at all.
This claim is dismissed. Pool maintenance
The tenant claimed that the premise was advertised as having a heated pool, but the boiler was never functional. The tenant had arranged to have the pool boiler repaired at a cost of $777.00 but did not have any receipts or invoices to prove this.
The tenant also claimed that there was a leak in the piping which caused the water levels to drop too low for the pool to be maintained by the tenant.
The landlord responded to the claims by stating that the tenant cannot incur costs without the landlord’s approval to fix the boiler. Regarding the pol maintenance, the landlord claimed that it was maintained by the owner consistently.
From the evidence provided by both parties, it was clear that there was a leak in the pool which was attended to by the landlord adequately. The landlord’s response to the issues raised by the tenant had been excellent.
However, the tenant had to top up the water themselves to be able to use the pool. If the tenant had not topped up water themselves, they would not have been able to use the pool when the water level was too low for maintenance. The tenant would have been justified in justified in seeking a “loss of use” claim for the pool in that case.
The tenant provided evidence of having spent $1,480.00 for the pool top up during the tenancy.
I order the landlord to reimburse this amount to the tenant.
However, I do not order reimbursement of the boiler repair costs. The tenant should have told the landlord about it so the landlord could have fixed it. The issues, diagnosis, and the receipt are all missing. I do not find that the tenant has proven this claim. Lawn maintenance
The tenant claimed that the landlord was responsible for maintaining the lawn as per the tenancy agreement but that the monthly mowings were insufficient to maintain the lawns.
The landlord responded to the claim by stating that monthly lawn mowing was standard and reasonable. The landlord had kept their obligation to provide mowing for the lawns. The landlord also provided fortnightly lawn mowing for a large part of the tenancy.
I accept the points raised by the landlord. The additional costs incurred by the tenant for the additional fortnightly mowing was a choice that the tenant made. The landlord had kept the tenancy agreement by providing lawn maintenance.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for reimbursement for lawn maintenance. Exemplary damages
Although the tenant claimed for exemplary damages, there was no unlawful act by the landlord that warrants exemplary damages.
Therefore, no exemplary damages are granted. Filing fee reimbursement
As it cannot be said that the tenant has wholly or substantially succeeded with the claims, I do not grant any reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
At the request of both parties, I grant name suppression for both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336901 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336901 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions