What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348824 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 5348824?

Compensation: Breach of tenancy agre…: $1,328.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,480.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- c…: $811.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- h…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- k…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- m…: $1,230.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- m…: $3,554.29 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348824?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Mould & damp, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348824?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13364809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348824 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 5348824?

Compensation: Breach of tenancy agre…: $1,328.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,480.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- c…: $811.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- h…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- k…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- m…: $1,230.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- m…: $3,554.29 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348824?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Mould & damp, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348824?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13364809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5348824 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5348824 — net $14,232.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of tenancy agreement- security alarm	$1,328.57	Breach of tenancy agreement- security alarm
Compensation: Failure to maintain- carpet	$811.43	Failure to maintain- carpet
Compensation: Failure to maintain- hot water	$200.00	Failure to maintain- hot water
Compensation: Failure to maintain- kitchen sink	$50.00	Failure to maintain- kitchen sink
Compensation: Failure to maintain- mould and dampness- rent rebate	$3,554.29	Failure to maintain- mould and dampness- rent rebate
Compensation: Failure to maintain- mould and dampness- power	$1,230.00	Failure to maintain- mould and dampness- power
Compensation: Failure to maintain- 2023 wet weather event damage	$3,480.00	Failure to maintain- 2023 wet weather event damage
Exemplary damages: Breach of s45(1) of the RTA obligations	$1,800.00	Breach of s45(1) of the RTA obligations
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$500.00	151. I make an order for the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA (a third of the maximum penalty available).
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment- carpark	$1,000.00	enant’s quiet enjoyment obligations. e.
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment- 11 June 2022 incident	$250.00	enant’s quiet enjoyment obligations. e.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,232.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$14,232.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5348824 — net $14,232.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of tenancy agreement- security alarm	$1,328.57	Breach of tenancy agreement- security alarm
Compensation: Failure to maintain- carpet	$811.43	Failure to maintain- carpet
Compensation: Failure to maintain- hot water	$200.00	Failure to maintain- hot water
Compensation: Failure to maintain- kitchen sink	$50.00	Failure to maintain- kitchen sink
Compensation: Failure to maintain- mould and dampness- rent rebate	$3,554.29	Failure to maintain- mould and dampness- rent rebate
Compensation: Failure to maintain- mould and dampness- power	$1,230.00	Failure to maintain- mould and dampness- power
Compensation: Failure to maintain- 2023 wet weather event damage	$3,480.00	Failure to maintain- 2023 wet weather event damage
Exemplary damages: Breach of s45(1) of the RTA obligations	$1,800.00	Breach of s45(1) of the RTA obligations
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$500.00	151. I make an order for the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA (a third of the maximum penalty available).
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment- carpark	$1,000.00	enant’s quiet enjoyment obligations. e.
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment- 11 June 2022 incident	$250.00	enant’s quiet enjoyment obligations. e.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,232.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$14,232.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Street Smart Property Management Limited As Agent For Ujwal Rao & Anu Rao must pay [The tenant/s] $14,232.29 immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing on 18 February 2026. The landlord did not.
The landlord received the notice of hearing and was aware of the time, date and location of the hearing. The landlord applied for a very late adjournment the night before the hearing due to the property manager needing to “undertake an eviction at another property, while covering for others on sick leave”.
The late adjournment request was declined because: a. Streetsmart Property Management Ltd has 12 property managers, a letting agent and two administration specialists. Given the late adjournment request, and that the property manager had 5 months to prepare the landlord’s defence to the tenant’s claims, the property manager must have had the landlord’ defence to the tenant’s claims prepared and should have been able to hand this or the eviction off to another colleague. b. The law is clear. If a Court or Tribunal fixes a hearing date, it must be attended. Only in exceptional cases will a Court or Tribunal countenance the nonappearance of a litigant and/or their chosen representative. Needing to undertake an eviction is not considered an exceptional circumstance. c. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the Tribunal to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants and an adjournment would have resulted in a delay in hearing this matter of a further 2 to 3 months. This delay would disadvantage the tenant party that has been waiting for a hearing since 24 September 2025.
The landlord disagreed that a further 2-to-3-month delay in hearing this matter would disadvantage the tenant, as it was a vacated tenancy. This approach under-estimates the impact of such a delay on the applicant. An applicant is significantly disadvantaged by a delay in having their case heard by the Tribunal, often described as "justice delayed is justice denied," because it increases costs, diminishes the quality of evidence, and prolongs stress and legal uncertainty. Such delays are often used as a form strategic manoeuvring by the opposing party, knowing the financial and psychological toll it is potentially taking on the applicant party.
The landlord had the opportunity to provide written submissions and evidence in defence of the tenant’s claims over the five-month period between the application and the hearing but chose not to do so. Consequently, I must make decisions based on the evidence provided to the Tribunal before and at the hearing.
The tenant applied for compensation, general damages and exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
This was the tenant’s first-time renting, after her recent separation from her partner. Her partner had previously undertaken all financial management for the household and addressed any repair and maintenance issues. They had owned their own home.
The evidence given by the tenant proves that generally, over the duration of the tenancy, the property manager was unresponsive to the tenant’s texts and emails. This led to the tenant exchanging phone numbers with the owner so she called him when she was not getting a response from the property manager.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
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.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section109(2)(b) of the RTA , bars a party from applying for exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached the terms of the tenancy agreement?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 11 of the RTA to comply with the terms of the tenancy agreement agreed to and signed by the parties. Additionally, the general contract law principles also apply to the tenancy in areas not specifically covered by RTA. Security alarm
The “furniture and chattels” section of the signed tenancy agreement expressly states that the alarm is a chattel that will be provided by the landlord under the terms of the tenancy, in return for the rent paid by the tenant.
This means the tenant and her daughter should have been able to enjoy the amenity of the security alarm for the duration of their tenancy in exchange for the $580.00 per week rent they paid, when they took the tenancy thinking they would have the security this alarm provided.
The tenant claims she was never given the code to the alarm. She provided evidence that she followed this up with the property manager on 4 April 2022 but was still never given the code to the alarm for the duration of the tenancy.
I am satisfied the evidence provided by the tenant proves on the balance of probabilities the tenant was not given access to the alarm and that she notified the landlord she required access, and her request was ignored and not followed up by the property manager. As a result, the tenant suffered a loss of amenity she was expecting to have when she rented the premise as well as additional stress from the diminished security levels and increased security risk she and her daughter experiences at a time they were both feeling vulnerable.
I find the tenant has proven she was without the use of the security alarm from 12 March 2022 to the end of the tenancy on 27 September 2024, being 132 weeks and 6 days. I award the tenant $10 rent rebate per week for the period she suffered this loss of amenity, and inconvenience. This is a compensatory sum of $1,328.57. Gardens, lawns and hedge
The “responsibilities” section of the signed tenancy agreement expressly states: a. ”Lawns are the tenant’s responsibilities”; b. “Gardens are the tenant’s responsibilities”; and c. “Trees are the responsibility of the landlord”.
This means the tenant and her daughter were responsible for keeping the lawns and the gardens reasonably clean and tidy and that the landlord was responsible for maintaining the trees, including the hedges.
The tenant claims: a. There was no lawn maintenance undertaken by the landlord during the tenancy and that she had raised this with the property manager on 25 March 2022, with the owner’s mother when she came to do some gardening, on 29 March 2022 by email to the property manager and again by email on 2 August 2024. She claims she never got a response from the property manager to this issue; b. The gardens, trees and hedges were overgrown and narrowing the carparking space, blocking pathways, and causing spiders and cockroaches to inhabit the property and that she had raised this with the property manager on 25 March 2022, with the owner’s mother when she came to do some gardening, on 29 March 2022 by email to the property manager and again by email on 2 August 2024. She claims she never got a response from the property manager to this issue either.
I am satisfied the evidence provided by the tenant proves: a. The maintenance of the lawns and gardens was the tenant’s contractual responsibility and a condition she agreed to in writing when she signed the tenancy agreement. There was insufficient evidence for me to make a finding in regard to whether the lawns and gardens were in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy; b. The maintenance of the hedges and tress on the property were the responsibility of the landlord. Again, there was insufficient evidence for me to make a finding in regard to whether the hedges and trees were in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy. Additionally, the tenant did not provide any photographic or video evidence to prove the hedges and trees were overgrown. Therefore, the tenant relied on the emails sent to the property manager about this issue. Without photographic or video evidence of the condition of the trees and hedges at the start of the tenancy, during the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy, I cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities the landlord failed to meet this contractual responsibility. Text and email exchanges prove the issue was raised with the landlord but not whether the issue being raised had validity. What is overgrown to one observer may not be seen as such by another. I cannot apply the “objective fair-minded and informed observer” test to this issue without photographic or video evidence.
This claim is dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence of the breach to meet the balance of probabilities test. Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the RTA obligations to the tenant?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching either of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. A. Cut carpet
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice on 7 March 2023 after the owner sent a text saying “we need to cut an access hole near the bathroom entry” when the tenant was not at home.
The tenant’s mother was visiting when the owner turned up out of the blue- owner just came into the house. The mother was shocked and didn’t know if the tenant was aware the owner had intended to access the house that day.
The tenant confirmed the owner had not given the tenant any notice the owner was coming on site to inspect a pipe leak for the downstairs tenants and so needed to make a hole in the tenant’s premises to access the pipe.
The tenant says they sent a further text message a week later saying he would need to access the property the following Tuesday to see what was happening underneath the pipe. The tenant says he did not come back the following Tuesday.
The tenant’s mother told the tenant that the owner had been coming without notice a few other times prior to this date and she could not stop him barging in. Additionally, during these unannounced and unconsented owner visits, the 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. tenant’s mother confirmed that the owner was complaining to her about the tenant raising repair and maintenance concerns with him.
On 30 January 2024, the tenant sent an email to the property manager informing him that since 7 March 2023, when the owner had entered her home without consent and cut the carpet, it has been left like that and she had to put tape on it to prevent herself tripping.
The tenant says this trip hazard had not ben remediated by the time the tenant moved out.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to.
I am satisfied the evidence proves the tenant suffered a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience because the landlord failed to fix the carpet trip hazard he created on 7 March 2023 in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances
I award the tenants a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants for this 81 weeks and 3 days from 7 March 2023 to 27 September 2024, because of the landlord’s intentional breach of its s 45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations. The total amount of general damages awarded for this breach is $811.43
I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages as I find the breach to be intentional.
The quantum ordered will be set out at the end of this section of the Order under the header exemplary damage for s45(1) of the RTA breaches. B. Hot water
The landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, includes ensuring that the tenant has access to utilities which are either connected, or able to be connected, and working.
The tenant says under the “responsibilities” section of the tenancy agreement, the landlord has indicated that gas does not apply to this tenancy. As such, the tenant was unaware that the hot water for the premise was powered by gas.
When the tenancy commenced, the tenant found that she had no hot water. She was not aware of the reason for this as the power had been connected.
The tenant says the property manager was not available when she discovered this issue, so she called the owner of the property as she had his number. The owner told her the hot water cylinder was gas powered when she called him, and he said he would reimburse for the connection fee. True to his word, he reimbursed her for this cost. However, the tenant was without hot water for the first three days of her tenancy due to the landlord’s failure to inform her of the gas-powered hot water system and not ensuring that there was a working gas connection on the day the tenancy commenced.
The tenant confirms she asked the property manager multiple time to for a rent rebate to compensate her for the stress and inconvenience suffered, and he just ignored her texts and/or emails.
The tenant produced evidence that she and her daughter could not wash dishes or take showers for three days and that they had to drive some distance to a friend’s house to shower.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with relevant information regarding the gas powered hot water system, and that the tenancy agreement was also misleading in this regard.
I award the tenant a compensatory sum of $200.00 for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered due to the careless omission by the landlord in the tenancy agreement and the petrol the tenant used to travel to places where she and her daughter could shower over a three-day period. Additionally, this compensatory sum acknowledges the landlord did not offer any sort of rent rebate or compensation to recognise the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered because of its omission at the time the tenant sought this remedy.
I do not find that this breach was intentional. C. Kitchen sink
The tenant produced photographic evidence the kitchen sink was blocked when the tenant arrived at the premise on 12 March 2022 and that it remained blocked for 5 days.
The tenant produced emails that prove she raised this issue on 12 March 2022, and by follow up email on 16 March 2022.
She produced a further email dated 22 March 2022 she sent to the property manager that confirms it was fixed after 5 days.
I find the tenant has proven she was without the use of the kitchen sink for five days from 12 March 2022 and award the tenant compensation of $10.00 per day, being a rent rebate of $50.00 for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered.
I do not find that this breach was intentional. D. Windows and doors
The tenant claims: a. The kitchen windows did not close properly and couldn’t be secured as the latches were broken; b. The two living room windows had broken latches, on the right and left side, and were jammed shut and could not open; c. The one window in the main bedroom had a broken latch, couldn’t be secured and was open all the time; and d. The main door of the house could not be locked as the lock was broken. The tenant described an incident when she had an intruder outside breaking into her car and she was afraid the intruder may try to access the house as the door was not secure.
The tenant had no photographic or video evidence to support these claims, but she produced a 14 day notice she had sent to the landlord, on 30 March 2022, that includes these issues, and she confirmed these issues were remediated within the 14-day period after she sent a follow up email on 4 April 2022. She claims the property manager told her she “needed to be aware that this was not a new property”
I am satisfied that the evidence proves the landlord responded to the tenant’s window latch and door lock issues in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances after the tenant raised these issues with the landlord.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages for this alleged breach of s45(1)(b) of the RTA as the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove her claim on the balance of probabilities. E. Carpet
The tenant claims one of the carpets was rotting in living room and bedroom, due to the rain coming though the gaps in the window.
The tenant had no photographic or video evidence to support her claim.
The tenant produced emails to the property manager, dated 27 December 2022 and 29 January 2023. She claims she also raised the issue with the owner directly, but nothing was done to address the water ingress or the damp and rotting carpet.
An email sent to the property manager on 30 January 2024 states the carpet near the sliding door in living room is getting worse. The tenant says she mentioned this issue many other times.
I find the tenant has not proven her claims on the balance of probabilities as she was unable to produce any photographic or video evidence to support her claim. I am satisfied that the evidence proves she notified the landlord of the issue but not that the issue had validity when using the fir minded observer test. The claim is therefore dismissed. F. Fireplace and chimney
The tenant produced photographs that showed a gap in the chimney (metal) in the main bedroom. She claims this gap let in water and draughts, particularly when it was raining or windy. The gap is between the ceiling and the flue of the chimney.
The tenant says the owner came to the house a few times and the tenant raised this issue with him, about 1.5 months after tenancy started, and was told to raise it with the property manager. There was no written evidence produced to prove the tenant had raised this issue with the owner or the property manager.
The tenant also claims the fireplace and chimney had never been cleaned before the tenancy commenced or during the tenancy and that she had tried to clean the fireplace herself but could not clean the chimney. She says she found a dead bird in the fireplace when they moved in, which indicated the fireplace had not been used in some time.
The tenant stated that after coming back from vacation, she sent a follow up text message to the owner about the fireplace/chimney informing him of impacted the furniture, socket, mac book and that she had to put her boxes away due to the leakage.
She claims it never got fixed and leaked for the rest of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves there was a gap between the ceiling and the flue but there was no evidence that proves the tenant raised this issue with the property manager or the owner nor any photographic evidence of the water ingress or the alleged damage caused by water ingress from this gap.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages for this alleged breach of s45(1)(b) of the RTA as the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove her claim on the balance of probabilities. G. Mould and dampness
The tenant claims there was black mould in the second bedroom due to dampness and that the HRV system seemed not to work and she raised this with the owner around 17 January 2023.
She claims, on 17 January 2023, the owner passed on HRV persons details to her and the HRV person informed her it was overdue for a service and gave her the fee structure. She says she called the owner and told him, and he said he would contact the property manager or the HRV contractors to come and do the service. The tenant says she was never informed of the HRV contractor having come to service it and that they would have needed permission to access the house and had never been given notice these contractors were going to access the premise.
On 3 February 2023 the tenant emailed the property manager to inform him she had been given HRV contact and that the HRV contractor said it had not been serviced since 2018 when it was installed, and it should be done every 12 months. She also informed the property manager the HRV system had not been working since she moved in, and she was using an increased amount of electricity due to having to run two dehumidifiers and had burnt out one dehumidifier. The tenant confirmed the property manager never responded to this email.
The tenant claims the kitchen developed mould on wooden furniture, kitchen utensils and chopping board.
The tenant gave evidence that she could feel the heaviness of the moisture in the air and that is why her clothes hanging in the wardrobe got moist and mouldy. She proved she purchased a water catcher for the wardrobe and took the clothes out into the sun and air them regularly. Despite this, the tenant says the smell of the clothes was musty and they had visible mould growing on them that ruined the fabric of many items of clothing.
The tenant also proved she purchased two dehumidifiers to try to take some of the moisture out of the air, as she and her daughter were getting sick so often from the damp living conditions, she had taken too much sick leave.
The tenant produced evidence the fabric couch in living area was turning black with mould, so she had to purchase a new couch and that there was constant water on windows as well as mould on the walls and ceiling. The tenant confirmed she wiped the mouldy surfaces regularly with exit mould-based cleaners, but it would grow back.
The tenant says the property manager told her the house was healthy homes standards compliant so it cannot be damp but took no steps to investigate and remediate the causes of the damp living conditions and mould.
The tenant stated that after she started running the two dehumidifiers it made a difference. She claims the first one broke as it was running day and night and then she borrowed one from a friend. Further, she stated that her and her daughter shared one bedroom so they could heat the one room to stay warm as the lounge and other bedroom were impossible to heat without using large amounts of electricity due to the high level of moisture in the air.
The tenant proved that on 17 July 2024, she sent a text to the owner about the HRV, damage to her clothes and furniture (daughters’ bookshelf and books) from mould and dampness and provided photographs. She also informed the owner that the mould was “in cupboards, on the walls and ruining furniture” and that she had lots of doctors’ visits for respiratory issues that she had never had before. The tenant confirmed she had not suffered any respiratory issues since she had moved out of this premise. She also told the owner that she has purchased two dehumidifiers that show 90% moisture in the air.
The tenant confirms the dampness and mould issues were never rectified during the tenancy.
The tenant produced evidence to prove her power bill increased due to use of dehumidifiers by between $60.00 to $80.00 per month and that she had never used the heat pump as it was too cold to sit in the living area because of the damp air.
I am satisfied the evidence proves the tenant suffered a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience because the landlord failed to investigate and remediate the cause of the high levels of moisture/dampness in the premise from 17 January 2023 to 27 September 2024, being 88 weeks and 3 days, due to the landlord’s breach of its obligation to investigate and remediate the issue in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I award the tenants a rent rebate of $40.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants for this 88 weeks and 3 days period, because of the landlord’s intentional breach of its s 45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations. The total amount of general damages awarded for this breach is $3,554.29.
I also award the tenant compensation for 20.5 months (being 88 weeks divided by 4.3 weeks to a month on average) of increased power consumption at the rate of $60.00 per month. This is a total compensatory sum of $1,230.00.
I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages as I find the breach to be intentional.
The quantum ordered will be set out at the end of this section of the Order under the header exemplary damage for s45(1) of the RTA breaches. H. Leaks and electrical issues post the January 2023 extreme weather event
The tenant claims there was a leak in the main bedroom, around the corners of the ceiling, and she had to have a bucket on the floor. She produced photographs of the ceiling starting to fall from the water damage.
The tenant confirmed an electrician isolated all the power in that room due to the leak, because the tenant’s daughter had suffered an electric shock from using a light switch in the room.
The tenant says you could tell the water in the walls was impacting the wires as there was a loud static sound.
The tenant claims the timeline of events for this breach are as follows: a. There was severe flash flooding across [City] from around 5:00 pm on 27 January 2023. The tenant text the property manager that day to tell him about the flooding at the house at 9:53pm. She also texted the owner to notify him, as experience had taught her that the property manager would not answer her text; b. On 28 January 2023, the tenant’s daughter got electrocuted from a light switch in the main bedroom. The electricity in the room was isolated by electrician the next day, as arranged by the owner; c. 29 January 2023 the tenant sent the property manager an email regarding the leaks in main bedroom ceiling and that the owner had arranged an electrician that had isolated the room to prevent any further electric shocks, as such the tenant could not use the bedroom. She also informs the property manager of another few issues: i. During rain there is a foul sewage smell coming from the outside drain that comes into the house through the bathroom and since the floods it has now got worse and can be smelt in the lounge; ii. One of the tiles in the kitchen is cracked due to the recent rain and water is leaking out of these cracks; iii. The carpet near the windows in both the living room and bedroom has started to deteriorate due to leaks and that she had raised this with the owner on 27 December 2022 when he visited the property; and iv. The corner of the bedroom ceiling, above the door, is about to fall down, which was also shown to the owner on 27 December 2022, that the owner had a list of these problems and promised to have them fixed. d. On 31 January 2023, the property was yellow carded by the local Council due to electric issue in bedroom. The Council representative told the tenant she would be eligible for a rent reduction until the leaks and electrical issues were fixed as she was unable to use that part of the property. She asked the property manager for a rent reduction and got no response; e. On 3 February 2023 the tenant emailed the property manager informing him there was an ongoing issue with the roof leaks and water in the walls and that the local Council had come for second inspection on 2 February 2023 and were not happy with how long the damage and risks were taking to resolve. She also reiterates her frustration that despite letting the property manager know about the issues and her daughter having had an electric shock the property manager had not done any follow up and had not offered any sort of compensation or rent reduction for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience the tenant was suffering. She asks the property manager to respond and asks again for a rent reduction; f. On 12 February 2023, the tenant emailed the property manager again and informed him that due to his lack of response, she was suspending her rent payments until further notice. She claims she got no response; g. On 13 February 2023, the tenant informs the property manager that the kitchen sink was getting blocked up, due to no power to the waste disposal and that there were three new ceiling leaks in living room and kitchen; h. On 16 February 2023, the property manager informed the tenant that the electrician confirmed he came to check the light switch and said it had dried out, could be reconnected and used, but the tenant had told him not to do so; i. On 20 February 2023, the tenant sent an email response confirming the electrician had come but had told the tenant he couldn’t fix the switch until the leaks were fixed, so had isolated the switch until it has been looked at by the builder. The tenant confirmed the owner has been with handyman a few times and has seen the water damage himself. She also confirmed the local Council have visited and said if the issue is not fixed in a timely manner they may isolate the room entirely and block access to it. The tenant sought assurance that the property manager would accept full liability if the switch was activated and any sort of electrical incident occurs; j. On 14 March 2023, the local Council persons endured again if the landlord had reduced rent as the tenant had been unable to use this bedroom for nearly three months. The property manager responded by providing a lamp and extension cord to allow the tenant to use in the damp leaky bedroom that had no power to it. The tenant says she achieved a 50% rent reduction for two weeks by paying 50% of her rent for those weeks based on what the local Council told the tenant. k. On 14 March 2023, the tenant received an email from the property manager confirming the insurance claim was holding the repairs up; l. On 17 March 2023, the electrician confirmed there was a leak from outside the house and it needed to be fixed before the electrical faults could be addressed; m. Eventually, the sun dried the ceiling out and the tenant does not remember when the electrician came to retore the power, but around 27 March 2023, she just started using the power; n. Around late March 2023, a builder temporarily drilled holes to push the ceiling back up in the bedroom, but it was never fully repaired; and o. There is an email dated 2 August 2024, that states the leaks and temporary light switch fix was still an issue that needed to be resolved.
The tenant’s evidence is that the water damage and electrical issues were still not resolved at the end of the tenancy on 27 September 2024.
I am satisfied the evidence proves the tenant suffered a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience because the landlord failed remediate the 27 January 2023 related water damage and leak issues from 27 January 2023 to 27 September 2024, being 87 weeks, in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I award the tenants a rent rebate of $40.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants for this 87-week period, because of the landlord’s intentional breach of its s 45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations. The total amount of general damages awarded for this breach is $3,480.00.
I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages as I find the breach to be intentional.
The quantum ordered will be set out at the end of this section of the Order under the header exemplary damage for s45(1) of the RTA breaches. I. Outside lights
The tenant proved she raised issues about faulty outside lights on 22 March 2022 in an email to the property manager and got no response. She sent a follow up email on 28 March 2022 and again got no response.
The tenant raised this issue again on 29 March 2022and again got no response from the property manager, so she issued a 14-day notice on 30 March 2022 and within a week of that notice the issue was fixed.
The tenant stated that these lights not working was a security issue, as no one lived next door (it was a reserve) and that there had been someone snooping around the property.
I am satisfied that the eight days it took the landlord to address this issue was reasonable in all the circumstances and the tenant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. The claim is therefore dismissed. Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 12 March 2022. Therefore, the landlord had 90 days from the commencement date to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, being Friday, 10 June 2022. A. Ventilation
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant has based her claim on the HRV system not working properly and a window in the lounge being jammed shut and never fixed.
There is no healthy homes information in the tenancy agreement, other than an insulation and healthy homes compliance statement.
The tenant says she was never given a third-party provider healthy homes assessment report, or a copy of any self-assessment done by the owner or property management company or a healthy homes compliance certificate. Therefore, she does not know whether the house met this standard or not.
A landlord is not required to provide an HRV system to meet the ventilation standard.
The tenant has not had a healthy homes assessment completed to support her claim and has not provided sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached this standard.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages for this alleged breach of the ventilation standard as the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove her claim on the balance of probabilities. B. Draught Stopping
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the 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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant says there were issues with the doors and windows that were fixed in the second week of April 2022, after 14-day notice was issued on 30 March 2022. This remedial work was carried out prior to the healthy homes’ compliance date.
The tenant also relies on the hole in the ceiling around the flue that let in draughts and water ingress and was never fixed.
I am satisfied the tenant has provided sufficient photographic evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities there was a ceiling gap that let in draughts from about 1.5 months after the tenancy commenced on 12 March 2023. Therefore, it is likely that there was draughts from this hole still present on the 10 June 2022 compliance date and that this was never remedied.
I am not satisfied that this breach was intentional, as there was no evidence produced that proves the landlord was aware of this issue, other than the oral evidence of the tenant that she had informed the owner. Therefore, this claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. C. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the 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 if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant proved she notified the property manager about a down pipe that was hanging off, was taped and rusty, on 20 April 2022, in a text message. She claims he did nothing to address this issue and during the 27 January 2023 weather event it fell right off and was repaired. This resulted in a water fall cascading down due to its absence.
I am satisfied the tenant has provided sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities there a moisture ingress and drainage issue present on healthy homes compliance date and that this was never remedied. The tenant has proven this claim, that the breach was intentional and that an award of exemplary damages would be appropriate in all the circumstances.
The quantum ordered will be set out at the end of this section of the Order under the header exemplary damage for s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed 3 intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) that resulted in the tenant and her daughter living conditions that were unhealthy and that caused them considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenity the tenant was paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief to the tenant at these times.
I have also found the landlord has intentionally breached one of its s45(1)(bb) of the RTA obligations
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $1,800.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being one quarter of the maximum penalty available. Unlawful entry
Section 48 of the RTA contains provisions in relation to the landlord’s right of entry.
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice on 7 March 2023 after the owner sent a text saying “we need to cut an access hole near the bathroom entry” when the tenant was not at home.
The tenant’s mother was visiting when the owner turned up out of the blue- owner and just came into the house. The mother was shocked and didn’t know if the tenant was aware the owner had intended to access the house that day.
The tenant confirmed the owner had not given the tenant any notice the owner was coming on site to inspect a pipe leak for the downstairs tenants and so needed to make a hole in the tenant’s premises to access the pipe.
The tenant says the sent a further text message a week later saying he would need to access the property the following Tuesday to see what was happening underneath the pipe. The tenant says he did not come back the following Tuesday.
The tenant’s mother told the tenant that the owner had been without notice a few other times prior to this date and she could not stop him barging in. Additionally, during these unannounced and unconsented owner visits, the tenant’s mother confirmed that the owner was complaining to her about the tenant raising repair and maintenance concerns with him.
I find that on the balance of probabilities the landlord found the house opened and the tenant’s mother home and just entered the premise so he could continue to investigate the other tenant’s repair/maintenance issue so he would not be delayed by having to give notice of access.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord intentionally committed an unlawful act when he entered the tenant’s home without her consent.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord knew the tenant had not given him consent to enter the premise but did so as it was convenient for him to do so while he was undertaking repair/maintenance work on the property for the tenant’s living below; b. the tenant suffered the stress of knowing the landlord had been in her home and had also experienced a breach of her privacy; c. it is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress and breach of privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their right of entry obligations.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA (a third of the maximum penalty available). Breach of privacy/quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed her and breached her quiet enjoyment.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.” Carparking
The tenant confirmed the property was advertised as having a carpark that was never provided because the owner used the garage to store his personal belongings, and this impacted the tenant’s ability to use the car park in front of the garage.
The tenant claims when she was moving in, the owner was there and approached her and told her not to park where she was as the property did not come with a carpark. She had parked in the carport. The property manager had told her she could park there. The owner and the tenant exchanged numbers due to this issue in case he wanted her to move her car. Tenant raised this with property manager in email on 11 March 2022.
The landlord parked a car in that garage sometimes and needed access to the garage so told the tenant she could not park in front of it in the carport.
When the tenant used the carport, the owner texted her asking her to move the car after 9pm at night, in the winter when it was dark, raining and she had an early start in the morning.
She states the property manager did nothing to address this issue and that initially the owners coming and going was manageable. She says that after the 2023 flood his visits were more frequent and carparking became a significant issue for her. She says that when she told the owner that this is very inconvenient, the owner told her to leave her keys outside and he would move the car on to the road and then put it back for her. There was no written evidence of this conversation, it was an in-person discussion.
The tenant says this issue breached her quiet enjoyment of the property when she had been led to believe at the time she signed up to the tenancy that she would have unincumbered use of the carport. She knew the landlord had kept exclusive possession of the garage but did not expect that to impinge her quiet enjoyment of the carport that formed part of her tenancy.
I find the tenant has proven on the balance of probabilities the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premise by not addressing the issue of the tenant being inconvenienced by the owner’s access to the garage impinging in her quiet enjoyment of the carport and in doing so the landlord committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew the carport was part of the tenancy the tenant was paying rent to have quiet enjoyment of and if the landlord required this to be clear so he could access the garage at any time, the premise should not have ben advertised with carparking. The tenant confirmed that had she known she would not have unincumbered quiet enjoyment of the carport, she would have not signed up to the tenancy; b. The tenant suffered distress, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of a part of the property she was paying to enjoy because the landlord failed to adequately assess the garage access versus carport use issue before the tenancy commenced; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the distress, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the carport she suffered; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching a tenant’s quiet enjoyment obligations. e. I make an order for the landlord to pay $1000.00 in exemplary damages for this breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA (being a third of the maximum penalty available). 11 June 2022 incident
The tenant confirmed she notified the landlord, by email on 12 June 2022, about two handymen that came onto the property on the morning of 11 June 2022 to fix the deck without giving her any notice of they were coming. She had mentioned in a previous mail that a brief heads up would be appreciated if anyone was coming to undertake work outside the house, so she was aware of what is happening on the property. She was a recently separated solo mother with a daughter, who is a minor, who was at home on 11 June 2022, due to school holidays. Her daughter was not expecting anyone to be on the property that day and rang her mother in a panic as she got scared when she saw people unexpectantly entering the property. She says this is a breach of privacy and this has been done many times before and after, but she has no proof of these other incidents but says that was what led to her email on 27 November 2022, asking the property manager for a heads up if someone is coming on to the property.
I find the tenant has proven on the balance of probabilities the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premise by not informing the tenant there were contractors coming to work on the deck in the school holidays when a minor was home alone, and in doing so the landlord committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew the tenant had a daughter of school age that was more likely than not to be at home during school holidays when the tenant was at work and it did not see fit to give the tenant any heads up the work was about to be undertaken and when; b. The tenant and her daughter suffered distress, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment as a result of this breach; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the distress, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise she had her daughter suffered; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching a tenant’s quiet enjoyment obligations. e. I make an order for the landlord to pay $250.00 in exemplary damages for this breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA (being twelfth of the maximum penalty available). Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 46 of the RTA to provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
Under Section 46(1) of the RTA a landlord must provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims there was no lock on the gate at entrance to property and that there was an incident at the beginning of the tenancy where someone tried to break into the property and her car. She was scared if someone came in at night. There were no security cameras, and the outside lights were not working.
The tenant says the issue was remedied after the 30 March 2022 14-day notice when the property manager gave the tenant a padlock to use on the gate, within 7 to 10 days of 30 March 2022.
The tenant stated she was happy to use the padlock.
A landlord is not required to provide locks on gates to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure, only on doors to the house.
I am satisfied the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and that there is evidence to prove the landlord addressed the tenant’s security concern in a practical and mutually acceptable manner in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. This claim is dismissed.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with her claims, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in her proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct.
The tenant’s application for non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348824 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348824 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached the terms of the tenancy agreement?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached the terms of the tenancy agreement?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions