What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341346 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 5341346?

Compensation: $14,600.00 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Amenity: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $16,107.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $3,283.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341346?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341346?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13739063-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341346 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 5341346?

Compensation: $14,600.00 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Amenity: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $16,107.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $3,283.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341346?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341346?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13739063-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341346 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341346 — net $810.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 January 2026	$16,107.14		Rent arrears to 24 January 2026
Water rates to 14 November 2025	$3,283.30		Water rates to 14 November 2025
Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment and		$14,600.00	Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment and
loss of amenity		$800.00	loss of amenity
Total award	$19,390.44	$15,400.00
Net award	$810.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$810.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341346 — net $810.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 January 2026	$16,107.14		Rent arrears to 24 January 2026
Water rates to 14 November 2025	$3,283.30		Water rates to 14 November 2025
Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment and		$14,600.00	Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment and
loss of amenity		$800.00	loss of amenity
Total award	$19,390.44	$15,400.00
Net award	$810.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$810.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Landlord and Tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,180.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $810.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [Property Manager 1] and [Property Manager 2].
The tenant appeared with her mother, [name redacted], who had lived at the property with her. The tenant’s five children (aged between 1 and 10 years) also lived at the property. Background
This tenancy of a standalone home on large section in Auckland, began on 10 February 2023.
The landlord filed a claim on 4 September 2025 seeking termination of the tenancy and an order for rent arrears and water arrears.
The tenant filed a cross-claim on 11 November 2025 seeking compensation for various breaches by the landlord.
These matters first came before the Tribunal on 15 January 2026. At that hearing the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy (by consent) and granted possession to the landlord at 11.59pm on Saturday 24 January 2026.
The balance of the parties’ claims were adjourned part-heard for further hearing. Onus and evidence
As with all claims that are brought before the Tribunal, the onus is on the party bringing the claim to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
A very large number of documents were filed in respect of these claims. For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed and given at the hearing but the parties can be assured that I have considered all of the evidence in preparing this decision. The landlord’s claims
The landlord seeks an order for rent arrears of $16,107.14 to 24 January 2026 together with water arrears of $3,283.30 to 14 November 2025.
The landlord said that the tenant was often late paying rent but would usually catch up on payments, until September 2026 when they stopped paying rent entirely. The landlord produced a rent summary showing that the tenant’s last rent payment made on 9 November 2026, despite ongoing assurances that lump sum payments were going to be made.
The tenant has reviewed the rent summary and accepted that it accurately recorded all payments made. She agreed that the Tribunal could make an order for rent arrears for the amount claimed by the landlord, although the tenant says the amount owing should be offset by her claim which is discussed below.
The order for rent arrears is therefore made by consent.
The landlord produced water invoices and a schedule showing water arrears in the amount of $3,283.30 to 14 November 2025 (the landlord does not seek water arrears for the final months of the tenancy).
The tenant accepts that the water arrears schedule is accurate but says that she is entitled to compensation due to a water leak. I have therefore made the order for rent arrears by consent and consider the tenant’s claim for compensation below. The tenant’s claims
The tenant seeks orders for compensation for the following breaches: a. Breach of quiet enjoyment/safety/maintenance obligations due to works undertaken at the property b. Failure to provide working smoke alarms c. Failure to maintain Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant said that she chose the property because it was on a large fenced site with a small front garden and a very large flat back garden with established fruit trees for her young children to play. She set up a swing set and a large trampoline in the back garden.
However after only a matter of months, in May 2023, the landlord told her that they would be doing improvements to the property and would replace old pipes, construct a deck at the rear and install two parking bays in the front garden. The landlord said that the process would take between 4 and 6 weeks, and offered the tenant a rent reduction of $100 per week during the construction period due to the likely disruption. After discussing further with the landlord, and confirming that the landlord did not intend to build on the rear of the property (email correspondence produced), the tenant agreed.
The tenant said that the work took eight months, during which time she and her family were disrupted by workers starting at 7.30am Monday to Saturday using their power and water, essential services were cut off during construction, they had no access outside their back door due to the construction of a fence, there were hazardous conditions during construction including a makeshift entrance that caused falls, there was a crack in the ceiling and leaking following digging at the back of the property whenever they used the upstairs bathroom, and the contractors installed a makeshift tap outside which led to flooding in the area for nearly three years.
The tenant said that the landlord did not proceed as agreed but instead prepared the back garden for the construction of new dwellings, did not build a deck and put up a fence so that she could no longer access the back garden.
The tenant produced photos taken during the construction which show significant disruption including the following: a. that contractors built a solid timber fence approximately 1 - 2 metres out from her back door, blocking her access to the back garden (which could only be accessed by a metal gate at the end of the driveway) b. there were extensive works in the back garden with all grass and trees removed leaving bare clay and water pooling in various areas, diggers, large piles of gravel, numerous contractors onsite, retaining walls built around the perimeter of the section, and the construction of a large pit, reinforced with timber, which appears to be approximately two metres deep (over the heads of the contractors) c. there were road cones in the front of the property, a digger blocking the driveway, and construction material all over the grass verge d. the front garden was fenced off so that the tenant’s trampoline was on one side, on grass, and the other side was dug out leaving water across that entire side (over ankle height) e. a makeshift entryway was constructed over the grass portion of the front garden (the usual entrance by the driveway having been fenced off)
The tenant said that she agreed on rent reduction of $100 per week but that this was inadequate given the level of disruption that occurred and the fact that she did not regain the use of the back garden. She also said that she has still not received the compensation that had initially been agreed.
The landlord acknowledged that the work had taken longer than anticipated but said that although some contractors came over to inspect the site in May 2023 (on three occasions, always notified to the tenant) the work did not begin until 7 August 2023 and was completed on 13 November 2023.
They landlord acknowledged that services had been cut off during construction but said that the disruption had been very minimal, and produced evidence showing that the wifi and power were shut off for a very short period (a matter of hours in each case) and the tenant had been given advance notice.
The landlord explained that the fence was put up and the gates were padlocked for safety reasons as there were live electrical wires at the rear of the section and the council required them to restrict access. The landlord said that they had not known that the tenant would not regain access, and to recognise this they did not increase the rent when the 12 month rent review came around in February 2024.
The landlord says that they anticipated the work would be disruptive which his why they offered the tenant the sum of $100 per week in compensation. The landlord said that they had repeatedly asked the tenant for her bank account number so that they could pay the compensation to her, but she had not provided one, so on 17 January 2024 they applied the sum of $1,000 (for ten weeks of disruption) as follows: $795 to rent arrears and $205 to water arrears. The law
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 1
Premises includes any part of the premises including land and appurtenances. 2 Discussion
It is clear from the correspondence between the parties that the landlord advised the tenant that they would be “upgrading” the property. The tenant was led to believe that the work would be fairly minimal (4 – 6 weeks) and that although they would have to move the trampoline and other things from the back garden and park their cars on the road, they would be getting a new deck and new parking spaces.
In reality however the works were not an “upgrade”. The landlord was instead preparing the rear section for the construction of further dwellings, and the work was far more extensive than the tenant was led to believe. The photos show that the entire grounds were essentially a busy building site, with all of the associated disruption.
The tenant’s outdoor area during the construction was reduced to a front entranceway deck and a very small section of the front garden, not much larger than the size of the trampoline. However the tenant’s use of these areas was also affected as there was a makeshift entranceway across the grass area and a metal fence with extensive works occurring on the other side, and tools were left on the deck.
I accept that he tenant’s children could not safely go outside at all during the period of the works. I also accept that the tenant and her family had very little peace and privacy during this time.
I also accept the landlord’s submission that the disruption to services was fairly minimal. However I can see how these fairly minor disruptions may have felt significant to the tenant in the context of the overall works, particularly as she began to realise that she may have been misled about the purpose of and extent of the works. 1 Section 39(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 2 RTA
I find that the landlord has breached the tenant’s right to quite enjoyment in two ways.
First, by undertaking very disruptive works without the tenant’s fully informed consent (such works were neither and “upgrade” nor necessary maintenance and repair but were for the purposes of a subdivision at the rear).
Secondly, by effectively removing the tenant’s access to over half of the section (the back garden) during construction and beyond. The landlord and tenant had entered into a contract in which the tenant granted the tenant exclusive use of the premises. The “premises” included not only the house but also the land. There was nothing in the tenancy agreement, or in tenancy law generally, that gave the landlord the power to take away part of the premises. By removing access to the back garden the landlord interfered with the tenant’s use of and quiet enjoyment of the property in a significant way.
It is necessary to deal these issues separately in order to calculate compensation. Loss of back garden
In Lind & Lind v Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities [2025] NZTT 4946313 the subdivision of a property which left tenants without a garage and back garden (without the tenant’s informed consent) was found to be a breach of quiet enjoyment.
In assessing appropriate compensation the Tribunal noted that the garage was important to the tenants but the garden was of less concern as it was pleasant but was too big for the tenants to maintain and they had to pay a contractor to mow it. The Tribunal also took into account the fact that the tenants paid significantly less than market rent ($168 per week).
The tenants in Lind lost access to the garage and back garden in March 2023, and the Tribunal considered compensation in June 2025, ordering a total (one- off and final) sum of $3,000.
In this case the large back garden was a significant attraction for the tenant. She has five young children and was looking for a property with a safe place for them to play.
The tenant had contracted to pay $750 per week for the entire site but did not have access to the back garden from August 2023 until the end of the tenancy on 24 January 2026 (approximately 128 weeks). The loss of amenity to the tenant was significant.
Having heard from the property manager I accept that she was genuine in her belief that the tenant would regain access to the back garden (I have no information about what the owner knew) but the reality is that, regardless of intentions, the tenant lost a large and important part of the premises unlawfully.
It is not always possible to be precise when awarding compensation for loss of amenity. I must consider and determine the amenity value of the back garden in relation to the entire tenancy property (a five-bedroom home on two levels and in good condition at the start of the tenancy) and in the context of the needs of this particular tenant and her family.
The publicly available online records show that this property was originally a 809m 2 property.
Those online records show that the tenancy property has now been subdivided. The front half of the section (including the house and the front garden) is less than half the size of the original site, being 344m 2 . There is now no back garden at all.
In my view, taking into account the amenity value of the house, the size of the back garden and the significance of that space to the tenant, I consider that the tenant should be compensated for the loss of the back garden in the amount of $100 per week from the date that the works began until the end of the tenancy. In making this award I have taken into account the fact that the landlord did not increase the rent from February 2024.
I therefore order compensation for landlord’s breach in relation to the back garden in the amount of $12,800. Disruption
The tenant is entitled some additional compensation for the significant disruption that occurred while the works were taking place.
Having heard from the parties and having reviewed the photos I consider that the works very disruptive, as described in detail above. I have concerns that the landlord (or owner) thought it appropriate to tenant the property, knowing the disruption that was going to occur.
I consider that the tenant is entitled to additional compensation of $200 per week during the 14 weeks (7 August to 13 November 2023) which is the period over which I find that the works took place.
I therefore order additional compensation for the disruption in the amount of $2,800.
The total amount of compensation for the landlord’s breach of quiet enjoyment totals $15,600.
As the landlord has effectively paid the sum of $1,000 to the tenant (by applying that sum to rent and water arrears) the total amount ordered is $14,600. Compensation for water leak
The tenant says that the landlord installed a makeshift tap in the front garden that was leaking underground and leading to water pooling, and that she is entitled to compensation for this leak and for the contractor’s use of water during construction.
The tenant produced photos showing water pooling around the tap.
The landlord produced evidence that they had not charged the tenant for any water at all during the period of 31 August to 29 September 2023, which in my view is adequate compensate for the tenant for water use during the works, as the contractors do not appear to have been using a significant amount of water.
The landlord said that they investigated a potential leak on 13 February 2025 and no leak was found (evidence produced).
The landlord said that the tenant’s water use was did not change significantly throughout the tenancy and was consistent with the number of people living there.
The landlord explained that the tenant again raised the issue of the outside tap in late 2025 and they immediately engaged a plumber to check, who could not get hold of the tenant. They said that the plumber then attended found that the tap was not properly supported and was leaking around the base, which the plumber immediately repaired.
The landlord said that they did not charge the tenant for water for the last two months of the tenancy to compensate for any additional water use that might have occurred while the leak was undetected.
Having reviewed all of the evidence, including all water invoices through the entire duration of the tenancy, I consider that landlord has taken a fair and pragmatic approach in relation to the water and the tenant has been adequately compensated for any additional charges that might have been incurred due to this leak.
The claim for compensation for water is not proven and is dismissed. Failure to provide working smoke alarms
Landlords must comply with all requirements in relation to smoke alarms 3 .
The relevant regulations require landlords to have qualifying smoke alarms installed and operational 4 .
Smoke alarms must be installed in every sleeping space, or within 3 metres of the entrance to the sleeping space, and in each level of a multi-level dwelling. Similar obligations apply to boarding rooms.
Breaching the landlord’s obligations in respect of smoke alarms is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 5 . 3 Section 45(1)(ba) RTA 4 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 5 s45(1A) RTA and Schedule 1A RTA
Where a party 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 party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest 6 .
Tenants are also under an obligation to replace smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy.
The tenant says that the smoke alarm upstairs did not work property, and that there was a smoke alarm missing from downstairs throughout almost the entire tenancy (there was only one when there should have been two downstairs).
The tenant produced photos of the downstairs area showing the casing for a smoke alarm but the smoke alarm missing.
The landlord said that the tenant wanted to move in before the house was ready and they agreed on the basis that the tenant would purchase and install a smoke alarm that was missing in the downstairs hallway.
The landlord said that the tenant assured them that it would be no problem for them to do so, but at every inspection they found that the tenant had not done so, and reminded the tenant who said that they would.
The landlord said that they finally installed a smoke alarm on 31 October 2025 (invoice produced) after reminding the tenant inspections in February 2023, November 2024, and February, May, July and August 2025.
The landlord said that the smoke alarm upstairs was working, was checked at inspections, and that at no stage did the tenant tell them that it was not working. The landlord produced ingoing inspection photos showing a missing smoke alarm downstairs but smoke alarms in place upstairs.
Having reviewed the evidence I do not consider that the tenant has proved that the smoke alarm was not working upstairs.
I do however consider that the landlord was in breach of their obligations in respect of the smoke alarm downstairs. The landlord meant well by trying to accommodate the tenant’s desire to move in earlier but should not have delegated their obligations to install the smoke alarm to the tenant. The landlord then had multiple occasions during inspections to rectify the situation but did not do so.
The landlord’s breach is very much at the lower end of the scale. They were attempting to assist the tenant, and I note from the correspondence produced that the tenant enthusiastically agreed to purchase and install a smoke alarm (on the basis that she would be reimbursed) but never did so, despite numerous reminders. 6 s109(3) RTA
However it is in the public interest for landlords to comply with their obligations in respect of smoke alarms. Smoke alarms are small and inexpensive items but they are mandatory under current regulations for safety reasons.
In all the circumstances I consider that a small award of exemplary damages is appropriate (in the context of the prescribed maximum amount of $7,200), in the amount of $800.00. Failure to maintain
A landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 7 .
Tenants have a corresponding obligation to advise landlords as soon as possible of any damage to the premises or if any repairs are needed 8 .
Once the landlord has been advised of the need for maintenance/repairs they must undertake those repairs in a reasonable time frame. The time frame will depend on the urgency of the repair.
The tenant says that the landlord was in breach of their maintenance obligations during the tenancy because: a. There was no hot water in the downstairs bathroom for 4 – 5 months; b. There were delays in fixing a toilet connection and seat; c. There was a crack in the ceiling below the upstairs bathroom that would leak through the lights that was not repaired.
The landlord said that they responded to all maintenance requests promptly. They produced a printout from their online system showing all of the maintenance items attended to during the tenancy. The landlord said that the tenant was difficult to get hold of and contractors had difficulty gaining access.
The tenant said that she raised these issues well prior to them being logged by the landlord, but did not produce any supporting evidence. Discussion
Having reviewed all of the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord appropriately investigated and where necessary attended to the above repairs within a reasonable time frame.
The landlord’s records showed that in each case contractors were engaged almost immediately and an investigation and/or repairs were undertaken in a timely manner.
These claims are not proven and are dismissed. 7 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 8 Section 40(1)d) RTA Name suppression and filing fee
The landlord has been successful in obtaining and order for rent and water arrears, but the tenant has also been successful in obtaining and order for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment and the landlord’s failure to provide all the required smoke alarms at the start of the tenancy. In the circumstances I have not reimbursed either of the filing fees paid.
The Tribunal may exercise its discretion to supress the names of either or both parties if they have been the substantially successful party. Both parties have succeeded to a large degree with their own claim. I therefore consider that both parties are entitled to an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341346 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341346 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions