What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5347841 about?

The tribunal order states: Northside Property Management Limited must provide the tenant with

How much money was awarded in case 5347841?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347841?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12984433-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5347841 about?

The tribunal order states: Northside Property Management Limited must provide the tenant with

How much money was awarded in case 5347841?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347841?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12984433-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1076A Whangaparaoa Road, Tindalls Beach, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5347841 — Mould & damp

Order

Northside Property Management Limited must provide the tenant with compensation of $200.00 immediately, for not having an electric gate available.
Northside Property Management Limited must provide the tenant with compensation of $100.00 immediately, for use of the tenant’s own curtains.
Northside Property Management Limited must pay the tenant $200.00 immediately, for compensation for a delay in repairing locks.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenant and landlord, although at the hearing the landlord did not pursue any claims.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in the North Shore District Courthouse on 13 January 2026. The landlord was represented by Mr Kelly and Ms Logan, also in attendance was Mr Elworth the owner.
The tenancy commenced on 6 December 2023, and was a one-year fixed- term tenancy. The tenancy is now a periodic tenancy. The landlord is Scott Elworth by way of a property manager, Northside Property Management. The sole tenant is [The tenant/s].
At the time of the hearing, this was a continuing tenancy, but at the hearing, the parties agreed that the tenancy is to end on 20 January 2026.
On 19 September 2025 the tenant filed his application against the landlord (5347841).
On 7 January 2026 the landlord filed a cross application against the tenant (542408)

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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.

ANALYSIS

I will now proceed to consider the specific claims advanced at the hearing. Claim 1 – Work orders
The tenant seeks a range of work orders. A work order is an order made by the Tribunal that requires the landlord or tenant to do specific work at the tenancy. The RTA confirms that when a work order is made other than by consent of the parties, the Tribunal must make a money order that the respondent can elect to comply with, as an alternative to undertaking the ordered work. a. Windows and doors to be properly sealed so that no draughts come through them when they are closed
The tenant considered that over winter the premises were cold and draughty. I asked the tenant what evidence he had supporting these claims, the tenant referred to emails sent from him to the landlord during the tenancy.
In response, the landlord disputes that the premises are cold and draughty. The louvre windows were designed for the house. The landlord refers to the fact that there has been a Healthy Homes assessment. The landlord states that they have tried to address the louvres to see if they can be made more air-tight, but that has not been successful in meeting the tenant’s needs, and furthermore, the tenant has not allowed adequate access to the premises. The landlord notes that buildings are not airtight structures. Analysis
In terms of the windows, I find this claim has not been established. There is insufficient evidence to show that there are draughts from the windows beyond what would be considered reasonable for those sort of windows. In this case there has been an independent Healthy Homes Standards report, and there is no suggestion of defects with any windows as far has the Healthy Homes Standards are concerned. b. Curtains and thermal/moisture barrier protection to be installed in the bedroom;
The tenant said that when he took the tenancy in 2023, he found the curtains were not fit for purpose and deteriorated. The tenant considered that over winter the premises were cold and draughty. The tenant said that he was given permission to discard the existing curtains, and put up his own curtains in some rooms. The tenant considers that the louvre windows are responsible for the premises being cold and draughty. I asked the tenant what evidence he had supporting these claims, the tenant referred to emails sent by the him during the tenancy to the landlord.
In response, the landlord disputes that the premises are cold and draughty. The louvre windows were designed for the house.
In conclusion the tenant said that he has not incurred any further cost in purchasing curtains. Analysis
In terms of the curtains, they have been provided by the landlord and form part of the tenancy. That means the landlord is responsible for maintaining the curtains, and if necessary to replace them. In the course of the hearing, the landlord has accepted that the original curtains needed replacement.
If this was a continuing tenancy, I would have made a work order. But I am minded that the tenancy was to end the week after the hearing, so a work order would have no utility.
However, there has in effect been a windfall for the landlord, because the tenant provided curtains the landlord should have replaced. It is fair that the tenant be compensated for the curtains he has used. I consider compensation of $100.00 would be reasonable for that.
For the avoidance of doubt, the curtains are the tenants property, and this order does not transfer ownership in those curtains to the landlord. c. Leaking roof to be investigated and repaired if required; and d. Bedroom ceiling leaks in the roof cavity and mould to be investigated and remediated;
The tenant said that when he moved in, the roof was covered in moss and lichen. During the tenancy mould was identified in the bedroom ceiling. During an inspection, it was suggested that the gutters were blocked and overflowing into the ceiling. The tenant said that the gutters were full of debris. The tenant’s view is that given the lines of the mould on the ceiling followed a pattern of the Gib which support that the water was coming from inside the ceiling
In response, the landlord states that they have been up in the roof space, and there is no sign of any water leak in the ceiling. The landlord confirmed that the gutters have been cleaned. Analysis
If there was a water leak in the roof then that would be the responsibility of the landlord. In this case there is no evidence to support that the roof is leaking. The fact of mould developing on ceilings in residential dwellings is not unusual, normally it arises from environmental moisture from inside the house, rather than water leaks. The tenant has not provided any evidence to support to the balance of probabilities that the roof is leaking, therefore there is no basis to make this work order claimed. e. The electrical overload issues to be investigated and remediated;
The tenant says that there have been multiple visits from electricians, and they have repeatedly said to the tenant that the electrical system is ‘illegal’, in particular, the electrical distribution board was in a cupboard. The tenant said that all of the house was connected through one breaker, so it would frequently trip. The tenant’s position is that there is no provision within the history of electrical regulations that a distribution board could be in a cupboard. The tenant accepts that the work to the electrical system has been done. I asked the tenant what work he now wants me to order. The said that it would be to supply him with an Electrical Code of Compliance Certificate.
The landlord’s position is that it has responded to the tenants’ requests. The landlord states that they do not use ‘cowboys’ for work at the premises, they only use qualified professionals. The landlord notes the tenants reference to four electricians attending the premises, which presumably the electricians they sent. The landlord confirmed that when the electrician’s do work they do provide a certificate, which is not terms a ‘Code of Compliance’ certificate, but he is happy to provide the tenant with the certificates if he wishes to see them. Analysis
There is no work remaining that the Tribunal can order here. The tenant has confirmed that the landlord has had work undertaken by electricians, and he has not identified further work that he wishes to have ordered, other than receiving the certificate.
The landlord is not legally obligated to provide tenants with copies of electrical certificates, so I will not make orders on that. However the landlord has in this case agreed to provide the certificates, and to that extent, there is nothing for me to order in relation to the certificate. f. Ground drainage, subsidence of the land, house stability and stormwater runoff needs to be investigated and addressed/remediated if necessary;
The tenant states that shortly after moving in, there was a ‘river’ of storm water flowing which resulted in a pool of water collecting under the house. The water turned out to be coming from three water leaks from the water main on the street that Water Care were responsible for. In any event, the water was collecting in a pool under the residence, without any way to flow out of the underfloor area. The tenant confirmed there is a ground moisture barrier, so it would be muddy under that or around the edges of the barrier. I asked the tenant what work needed to be done. The tenant said that the landlord should undertake drainage work so that water is diverted from the house.
The landlord states that the issue with the water leaks to the mains, are outside of the tenancy boundary, so it is not something the landlord can influence. The landlord states that they have been to the premises and have dug a ditch around the house to divert water from the house. The landlord submits that drainage is part of the consent process when the house is built. Analysis
There is an obligation on the landlord under the HHS to ensure that “The tenancy building must have a drainage system that efficiently drains storm water, surface water, and ground water to an appropriate outfall” 1 .
As far as the burst water main, that is not a breach from the landlord, the ruptured main occurred outside the boundary of the property. I have no difficulty in accepting that this was simply an unexpected set of ruptures of the mains, and that it could not have been predicted by the landlord.
Beyond that, I do not see any breach on the part of the landlord here. The landlord could not have reasonably be expected to have water diversions in premises in case of a water main rupture on the street. Ultimately, the premises would have been subject to inspections when the premises were built, and I have no reason to consider that the premises would not have complied with the required building obligations at the time.
The evidence is that landlord has undertaken further works to create some diversion.
However, the tenant states at the hearing that there is still a small pool of water under the house. If that is the case, then the landlord should address that. If the tenancy was continuing I would have made a work order that the landlord assess if there was a pool of water, and to address it, but given the tenancy is ending, I decline to make that order..
Otherwise, I accept that the lawn would be more damp that it normally would given the volumes of water from the watermain rupture, but I do not consider there would be any reasonable order that the Tribunal could make in relation to that dampness. g. Electric driveway gate to be investigated as it is clunky and noisy but working and remediation undertaken if required;
The tenant states he was attracted to the property because it had an electric gate, which stopped working during the tenancy. As it turned out, when the power in the house would trip, it would also blow the fuse for the electric gate, and the tenant would need to go under the house to replace the fuse 1 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, Regulation 27(1). (some 16 times). The tenant also considers that the gate will not work at times, and it has also come off its rails. Also on one occasion, the gate closed, denting his car, which he needed to lodge an insurance claim for. The tenant said that following the case conference, there was action on the gate, where the electricians and gate contractor attended on a number of occasions. The tenant said that the landlord elected to replace the gate motor to a mains unit, but that the tenant challenged the contractors on whether that was the most appropriate option. Subsequently, the gate has been changed to a manual gate, which can cause problems with blocking traffic when opening or closing the gate.
The landlord agrees that the gate has been a problem, and that a number of contractors have looked at it. Changing the gate to being manual was a solution. The landlord states that the contractors are not wanting to work with Mr Aves because he interferred with what they do, and is difficult when there are any changes in their working schedule.
The tenant disputes that he is difficult with contractors. Analysis
There is no dispute between the parties that the premises were rented with an electric gate, and further that during the tenancy, the gate became faulty / stopped working at times.
In short, the tenant rented premises with an electric gate, so he should have that provided during his tenancy. If the gate failed, it needs to be repaired. While the gate was converted to manual, that is not the solution that meets the tenants needs.
If the tenancy was continuing, I would have made a work order. But I consider it fair that the tenant be compensated for a loss of amenity in that he was paying rent for an electric gate and not getting that benefit. I consider that compensation of $200.00 would be reasonable, and that is ordered to be paid by the landlord. h. Broken deck railing to be investigated and repaired;
The tenant said that during the tenancy the deck railing failed. A poor repair was undertaken, but the owner has more recently undertaken a proper repair. The tenant also says that he has undertaken work to countersink the deck nails.
The tenant confirmed there is no further work needed to the deck at this time, so no further orders are made. i. Shower drain to be investigated and repaired/replaced as it still leaks on to the floorboards and drips on to the ground under the house even after four plumber visits.
The tenant says that the shower floor drain was leaking under the house. A plumber came to the premises, but first only provided a quote. The plumber returned and siliconed the drain, but it still leaked. The third plumber attendance resulted in the rubber seal being replaced, which did stop the floorboards from becoming wet. However the tenant said that there was still a leak to the drain under the house, but ultimately that was fixed by the owner, and it has been solved now.
Again this is a case where no further issue continues, so there is no work order required. Claim 2 – Failure to maintain
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for a failure to maintain the tenancy. The tenant said that when issues were raised with the landlord, they either did not address them or were slow in addressing them. The tenant said that when contractors attended, they would often only attend to provide quotes, and then not proceed with work, so then the landlord would need to start the process over again with other contractors.
The tenant provided a table for the hearing, which he says sets out the delays for the work.
In the case conference minute, the tenant described ten specific failings. a. Windows and doors not properly sealed so that draughts still come through them when they are closed, and the tenant’s power bills are increased as it is hard to keep the house warm and dry during the winter months;
The tenant says that he asked the landlord to address the doors and windows in mid 2024, but that this work has not yet been completed. The tenant considers that the landlord’s recent ‘All Clear’ report does not support that this standard has been met (that report has not been provided). The tenant said he attempted to get his own report from a window firm who said that some of the windows needed seal replacement.
In response, the landlord considers the premises were HHS compliant. While sealing strips were installed, that was only at Mr Aves request. The landlords view is that the claim of failure to maintain really means failure to maintain to Mr Aves exacting standards. Analysis
It is not a breach to have some gap, houses by their very nature have gaps in some locations. The question is whether the gap is “unreasonable”.
Regulation 26 of the HHS deals with ‘Gaps and holes that allow draughts’ and provides the following guidance: (2) In determining whether a gap or hole is unreasonable for the purposes of sub‐ clause (1)(c), the following matters may be taken into account: (a) the size and location of the gap or hole: (b) the extent of the draught that is allowed through the gap or hole: (c) if there is more than 1 gap or hole at the premises, the extent of the total draught that is allowed through those gaps and holes: (d) the likely impact that a draught through the gap or hole will have on heat loss from the premises: (e) any other relevant matters, subject to subclause (3).
I am not persuaded that there is evidence of a breach. The photographs provided do not support any gaps in window joinery.
I have no reason to conclude that when the joinery was installed at the premises, it was undertaken to the expected standard.
I am also minded that the landlord has obtained an independent HHS assessment from ‘Core Compliance’, which assess that there were no excessive gaps. I asked the tenant why I should not accept that report, the tenant said it was done too quickly. Overall, the Core Compliance report seems to be reasonably comprehensive, and in the absence of an alternate report from a third-party contractor being provided to the Tribunal, I cannot see any basis to go behind it.
Ultimately the tenant has not convinced me there has been any failure of a legal obligation the landlord had in relation to windows or doors, that could be a basis for the tenant’s claim there has been a failure to maintain of those items. b. No curtains and thermal/moisture barrier protection in the bedroom
The tenant considers that the landlord should have provided better thermal / moisture barriers with curtains.
The landlord considers that the curtains had been taken care of by the original property manager, in that they had been addressed, so it was not an issue any longer when the tenant put up his own curtains. Analysis
There is no legal obligation on landlords to provide curtains.
However, the premises were provided with curtains, so they needed to be maintained, which means to replace them if they become so deteriorated that they require replacement. The landlord accepts that the original curtains need replacement.
I accept that the evidence supports a conclusion that the curtains need replacement, which is a maintenance issue. I have ordered compensation for the curtains above, albeit within the work order claim. c. Leaking roof
The tenant seeks orders in relation to the claimed roof leak.
The landlords position is that the roof is not leaking. The roof space is not damp, and further the HHS inspector has been in the roof and measured moisture which was unremarkable. Analysis
For the same reasons discussed above, the tenant has not established a likely leak in the roof from which this claim could be based. The claim is dismissed. d. Dirty overflowing gutters and broken gutter joint
The tenant said that the gutters were blocked and the roof needed washing. The tenant says that the landlord did get a contractor in to clean the roof, but they missed a whole side of the roof. The tenant said he raised the gutters with the landlord in March 2024, June 2024, August 2024 and September 2024. The contractor attended in September 2024, but the gutters were not properly cleaned until November 2025.
The landlord says someone did attend the premises, who did not consider there was an issue, but later got the gutters cleaned nevertheless. The landlord states they paid for water blasting to the roof, and considers that it was probably done, only not to the tenants’ expected standard. The owner accepts that there was debris in the gutters, but states it was not affecting the tenancy at all. It was not causing the rain to back up or leak in the tenancy. Analysis
I agree that the gutters needed cleaning, and the roof needed water blasting. But the evidence is that the landlord instructed contractors to do this work. I am satisfied that the landlord has had those areas of the house maintained. I agree with the landlord, that while there was debris in the gutter, the evidence does not support that it was having any effect on the tenancy. To that extent, there is no loss that the tenant could claim from the landlord on this matter. e. Ceiling deterioration
The tenant considers that the landlord has not addressed the deterioration in his ceiling.
The landlord’s response is that any deterioration to the ceilings was from mould, which requires regular cleaning from the tenant. Analysis
On the basis of the evidence available, I consider that any issues with the ceilings are likely to be from mould. The tenant has not proven a defect with the tenancy (like a leak), that may account for the mould. That means the most likely cause of the mould would be environmental moisture arising from use of the premises, which falls to the tenant to address within the tenants obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. f. Multiple electrical issues
The tenant considers that the electrical system was faulty or poorly designed, such as the landlord simply adding on circuits to the same line. Mr Aves considers that the electricians who have done work on the premises have not undertaken work to a suitable standard, or focused too narrowly, only on the issues they had been sent to work on. Again the tenant refers to nuisance tripping because there were too many plugs on each circuit.
The landlord states that they have not ignored the issues the tenant if facing, stating it been worked on continuously, including having an experienced electrician working on the house.
The tenant submits that the electricians are not wanting to ‘rock the boat’ with the property manager, which means that needed work is not completed. Analysis
While the tenant is very critical of the electrical system in the house, he has not proven to the Tribunal’s satisfaction that the system failed to comply with the required electrical standard. The standard that the premises are measured against, is the standard when the premises were built, or the electrical work undertaken.
My impression is that when the tenant has raised electrical issues, the landlord has been responsive with getting electricians to attend the premises, and has funded work to get the premises to the necessary standard.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal to show that the premises are electrically unsafe.
What the tenant is seeking, is an improvement to the electrical system in the house. The landlord’s legal obligation is to maintain the premises, not improve it. Given the tenant has not identified any aspects of the electrical system that needed ‘maintenance’, then it must follow that the tenant has not identified a breach from which compensation or exemplary damages could be ordered. g. Ground drainage, subsidence, house stability, stormwater runoff;
The tenant states that following work that had been undertaken by Water Care on the street, that he would notice shaking or movement to the house, particularly when Water Care installed a plate which meant traffic on the road would cause the house to shudder. The tenant believes that given this repeated shaking, and given the water under the house, that it has presented a risk that the foundations for the house may not be unstable. Further the tenant considers that there has been movement in doors and architraves which suggest the house has moved.
The landlord’s position is that there is no movement to the house foundations. The owner who was at the hearing advised he is a structural engineer, and his view is that there is no movement. The movement from vibration on the road is not the landlord’s responsibility. Analysis
For the same reasons as set out above, the landlord did not cause the issues with the ruptured water main, and similarly, the landlord cannot be liable if here is road vibration or shaking from vehicles passing over the steel plates on the road.
I am not persuaded that tenant has proven that there is likely to be movement in the foundations of the house that the landlord should have addressed. Certainly there could be some movement of a minor nature in the house, that is normal. But the tenant has not convinced me that there is evidence of concerns that the landlord should have done something more from. g. Fence and deck issues
The tenant states that he undertook about three hours work to undertake repairs to the fence and the deck.
In response, the landlord states that the fence issues were not raised by the tenant prior. The nails in the deck ‘pop’ with the heat. The landlord states that again they were not asked to repair the deck.
At the hearing I asked the tenant if he had been asked by the landlord to do the fence and deck nails. The tenant could not recall asking the landlord to do this work. Analysis
The obligation is on the landlord to undertake maintenance, but there is an obligation on the tenant to raise with the landlord when work is needed.
However, there are two problems faced by the tenant.
Firstly, there is no provision in the RTA which allows a tenant to do work and then claim the cost from the landlord (except in emergencies which is not the case here).
Secondly, even if there was, the landlord has not asked the tenant to do this work in the first instance, so there is no breach on the part of the landlord. i. Plumbing issues
The tenant raised three issues with the plumbing:
Firstly there was a problem with the kitchen overflow, where it was not connected to the waste. The plumber fixed this by sealing the waste. The tenant asked the landlord to fix this in March 2024. This was fixed in November 2024. The landlord does not have any records to comment on.
Secondly, the slide shower came off, and left a hole in the wall of the shower (which was solved when the plumber replaced the slide shower unit). This was also raised in March 2024, and the plumber first attended in November 2024. The tenant believes the moisture was coming up through the grout lines in the tile. The landlord had no further comment on this.
There was a third issue where the drain leaked as discussed above, also raised in March 2024, with the plumber coming in and fixed in October 2025. Analysis
I am satisfied that these three plumbing issues would comprise maintenance issues. However I conclude that the landlord did get this work addressed. While it could have been undertaken sooner, it was nevertheless addressed. When considering if work was undertaken with reasonable speed (urgency), that would depend on what the detriment was to the tenant from not doing the work. On balance, I am not persuaded that the detriment to the tenant was such that it would be reasonable to order compensation in this case. j. Kitchen and ranch slider lock falling off
The tenant says that the door latch in the kitchen became loose, and it worsened over time, and ultimately fell off. The tenant says that there appears to have been an earlier repair which was not of an adequate standard. The tenant raised the issue with the kitchen lock on 9 August 2024, and it was repaired on 9 September. The other lock was raised on the first day he moved in, and resolved in May 2024. The tenant said both doors were external doors, and the doors were unsecure. In both instances a broomstick was used to keep the doors closed.
The landlord accepts that if the dates presented by the tenant were correct, the request had fallen through the cracks. The landlord states that if they were aware of the issues, they would have addressed it, because you cannot leave tenancies unsecure. Analysis
Section 46 relates to locks, and confirms that “The landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.”
In this case I accept that there were issues with the locks, and further that the landlord should have addressed it much sooner, given the potential detriment to the tenant. I consider that compensation should be provided for paying rent for an insecure house. Again I consider compensation at the level of $200.00 would be reasonable and that is ordered. Claim 3 – Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant submits that the landlord has breached its obligations under the Healthy Homes Standards, particularly under two standards: a. Mosture and drainage – the tenant states that the landlord would not engage around anything relating to the Water Care issues. The ground was soggy so gumboots were needed to walk on the grass. b. Draught stopping – The tenant considers that the landlord should have done more to address the issues with the louvre windows.
The landlord states that the house was HHS compliant. The landlord does not believe that any work was needed to get the premises HHS- compliant. While the landlord did send contractors, that was only to “appease” the tenant to keep him happy, noting that the HHS assessment confirmed no work was needed. Analysis
The tenant has claimed that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. Draught Stopping Standard
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
In this case, for the reasons set out above, I find that the tenant has not proven that the premises failed to meet the draught stopping standards. Again the photographs do not support any breach, and further the HHS assessment supports that there was no breach. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The tenant has not proven that the landlord has breached the moisture ingress and drainage standard. I do not accept that there was any intention with the regulations that a tenancy needed to weather flooding of the nature that arose from the water main rupture, which was an extraordinary event. The tenant has not convinced me that the premises did not comply with reasonable expectations around ordinary water exposure such as storm water, or other expected types of water exposure. Claim 4 – Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant said that there has been a breach of quiet enjoyment, where he would be required to comply to inspections more than monthly, and that could include multiple contractors coming to the premises. The tenant considers that the landlord could have been much more efficient with getting contractors to do more jobs when they attended, so reducing the number of attendances.
I asked the tenant if he could identify any times where inspections occurred more frequently than every four weeks. The tenant said this occurred with an inspection on 26 September 2024, with a further inspection then carried out on 18 October 2024, where the owner wanted to come and check the condition of the property.
The landlord states that the landlord’s attendance on 18 October 2024 was for the purpose of repairs (Mr Elworth advised he has never attended for an inspections, only to undertake work). The landlord further states that it makes no sense for a tradesman not to complete a job, because they are not paid for call-backs Analysis
The RTA sets expectations around a landlord’s right of entry to the premises, which are set out in section 48. In this case there are two provisions that are relevant. b. Section 48(2)(b) relates to inspections, and that requires 48 hours notice, not more frequently than once each 4 weeks. c. Section 48(2)(d) which relates to repairs and maintenance requires 24 hours notice, but there is no cap on how often those attendances can occur.
As set out above, the tenant has been critical that the landlord has not undertaken some work, but in this claim considers there have too many attendances.
There is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord undertook ‘inspections’ more frequently than every four weeks, the tenant acknowledged that the landlord would undertake three monthly inspections.
As far as the attendance on 18 October 2024 by the landlord, I accept that attendance was to undertake maintenance.
The tenant is concerned that he has frequently needed make allowances to meet contractors, but it must be noted the tenant did not need to be present at the time of the contractor’s coming to the premises. He is welcome to be present, but is not required to.
The tenant has not convinced me that the volume of attendance is beyond a reasonable standard. Rather I consider that the attendances were reasonable in number, particularly given the requests that Mr Aves was making on the landlord. I cannot see a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. Claim 5 – Insurance excess
The tenant states that the electric gate closed on his car, causing damage. A claim was made on the tenant’s insurance for this. The tenant said he was getting ready for work, and loading boxes into his car, saw the gate move, and closed on his car. The car needed to be panel-beaten, the tenant paid $550 in excess. The tenant considers that the gate had been malfunctioning for some time. The tenant confirmed that the remote control was not in his pocket, it was in the house. The tenant said that normally he would not park there, but this was a short period of time he was parked in that location. The tenant does not know what the cause of the fault would have been.
The landlord’s position is that the tenant was aware that there were issues with the gates, so there is contributory conduct from the tenant. Further, it would be unusual for the gate to close on its own. Analysis
I do not doubt the tenants evidence that the gate closed on his car, causing damage.
However, I decline to order compensation for two reasons.
Firstly, I do not consider a reasonable tenant would park a vehicle in the middle of an electric gate, because of accidental gate closure.
Secondly, in this case the tenant advised that the gate had been malfunctioning for some time. If that is the case, that further argues against a reasonable tenant parking in that location.
I am not persuaded that the damage to the tenants car arose from a landlord breach, so I make no order on this claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347841 — Mould & damp at 1076A Whangaparaoa Road, Tindalls Beach,

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347841 — Mould & damp at 1076A Whangaparaoa Road, Tindalls Beach,

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Property management

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Property management