What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5351223 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5351223?

Failure To Maintain Fence: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5351223?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5351223?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13083682-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5351223 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5351223?

Failure To Maintain Fence: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5351223?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5351223?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13083682-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Dalry Place, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5351223 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5351223 — net $128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Damage to walls	$550.00		Damage to walls
Failure to maintain fence		$650.00	Failure to maintain fence
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$550.00	$678.00
Net award		$128.00
Bond		$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$128.00

Order

[The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $128.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5389318-005) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person on 3 February 2026.
On 25 September 2025, the tenant applied for a refund of the bond and compensation. At the hearing, the landlord made a claim against the bond but had not filed an application as required by section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). I allowed the landlord to present their claim in the interests of finality. Background
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a 12-month fixed term from 23 July 2021 at a weekly rent of $650.00. A bond of $2,600.00 was paid and lodged.
The tenancy continued and the tenants vacated on or about 16 September 2025. Water Invoices
The tenants spoke to written submissions at the hearing. They explained that the landlord did not provide copies of water invoices on a regular basis, causing budgeting issues. The landlord would provide no invoices for 7-8 months and then provide them all at once.
The landlord said she had computer problems.
There is an implied term that landlords will provide water invoices to tenants within a reasonable time when they are received (Woollams v Simpson (DC Auckland, CIV 2005-404-1583, 16 March 2006)). This allows tenants to manage their cash flow.
I acknowledge the difficulties the landlord’s failure or inability to do this caused the tenants, however, I did not understand the tenants to be seeking any further remedy. There are no outstanding water charges. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenants claimed compensation and exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment. This mainly related to an incident on 12 July 2025 during a visit by the landlord to mow the lawns. The tenant said the landlord knocked on the door, interrupting his online work meeting, and demanded that he come outside to discuss an issue with building waste at the premises. The tenant explained: I was yelled at, in front of my children, and repeatedly told I clearly was not looking after the property. This interaction was so intense his teenage children all turned off their lawnmowers and watched. Builders working on the neighbouring property also stopped work and watched. This was embarrassing, unreasonable and made my children fearful of [the landlords]. I was left shaken, and this feeling of uneasiness left me unable to focus at work at times over the following weeks.
The landlord explained that the tenant had brought building waste onto the premises which he had agreed to remove. The next time the landlord came the spoil was still there. The landlord denied shouting and said his children were not interested in the conversation, as they were helping him with the lawn and were wearing ear protection. The landlord admitted that he was frustrated because the tenant had not removed the spoil, and further waste had been dumped along the southern boundary.
Both parties impressed the Tribunal as being honest witnesses. The Tribunal can accept that they have different recollections of the incident. The landlord may have appeared unduly aggressive to the tenant because he was frustrated. The landlord may have had reason to feel that way. It may also be the case that the lawn mowing continued in the background and required the landlord to speak loudly.
Ultimately, I am not satisfied that the landlord’s behaviour was unreasonable or that the tenant’s quiet enjoyment was breached. While the tenant’s work meeting was interrupted, the landlord did not know the tenant worked from home and there was always a risk that such meetings might be disturbed by visitors. The landlord was entitled to knock on the door and ask for a meeting and the tenant was entitled to decline. Toilet
The landlord alleged that the toilet seat was found to be filthy at the inspection on 19 July 2025. The landlord said this related to unhygienic use of the toilet. The tenants said the staining was caused by limescale. The tenants said the landlord initially agreed to replace the toilet seat before informing them that it was too dirty to be attended to by a tradesperson. The landlord acknowledged at the hearing that the toilet needed to be cleaned before it could be fixed (see also the landlord’s email dated 17 August 2025). There had previously been a problem with the flush mechanism falling down the toilet causing a blockage in March 2024, which the tenants paid to fix. The toilet cistern needed further repair in July 2025.
The tenants said they were able to clean the toilet after multiple applications of a descaling product. The tenants said they were embarrassed by the state of the toilet seat and stopped having visitors. It is the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises and the tenant’s obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean. I consider the landlord was mistaken in adopting the view that the cistern repair could not take place until the seat had been cleaned. The landlord could have arranged for professional cleaning, on-charged this cost to the tenants, and organised repairs. The landlord might have considered replacing the toilet seat if it could be done so inexpensively. However, because I am unable to determine the cause of the toilet stain, I am unable to find either party in breach of their respective obligations. Boundary Fence
The tenants said the fence was in poor condition and had blown over during a storm in January 2022. The tenant said he repeatedly informed the landlord of the issue and explained how he had attempted to brace the fence. The tenant said in mid-2025 he showed the landlord a repair he had performed. The photographs provided by the tenant show the fence in a poor condition, with missing palings, exposed rusting nails, and the use bracing to keep the fence somewhat upright.
The landlord said they first knew of a problem with the northern boundary fence, which was leaning over, at the inspection on 19 July 2025. The landlord said the fence was fixed and the builder was paid on 11 September 2025 (see the invoice for fence repairs dated 7 September 2025).
I find that the landlord failed to maintain the fence. Its condition would have affected the tenant’s privacy to an extent. The exposed nails and the risk of collapse were a health hazard. While the landlord said they were unaware of repairs being performed by the tenant and generally denied knowledge about its condition, I consider this would have been evident at inspections or when the landlord came to mow the lawns. The fence was dilapidated. I award compensation of $650.00 (one week’s rent). Final Inspection
The tenant said they had an agreement with the landlord following the final inspection about the work that needed to be done at the premises. The tenants were to be allowed to perform the repairs. The next day the landlord changed her mind and said that they would arrange the repairs.
In my view, the landlord was entitled to decide to perform the repairs themselves. At the end of a tenancy, a tenant has an obligation to vacate and to return the keys. A landlord has no obligation to permit tenants to remain or to re-enter to perform repairs once the tenancy had ended. While the tenants might have been able to repair at less expense, this must be balanced against the landlord’s right to decide how their property is fixed and by which tradespeople. A landlord does not breach their duty to take all reasonable steps to mitigate loss simply by deciding to use their own contractors to perform repairs. Damage
The landlord claimed $360.00 for repairs to the dining room walls and $750.00 for repairs to small holes in the walls in a bedroom. Supporting invoices were provided. The tenants said the line of holes were caused by their daughter putting up pictures.
I find that this was more than fair wear and tear. Strictly speaking, permission was required for holes to be made in the walls, although this would likely be seen as a “minor change”. The landlord would not be able to withhold consent for a minor change.
However, the tenant would then have been under an obligation to return the premises to substantially the same condition that they were in before the minor change (see sections 42A and 42B of the Act). The tenant’s liability to make good in this context does not appear to be limited to the insurance excess, in the same way as damage caused by removal of a fixture or carelessly caused damage (see sections 42(6) and 49B of the Act).
There were also about two other areas of damage to the walls, one in a bedroom that may have been caused by the tenant’s desk and the other in the dining room from the tenant’s plant.
I find that the tenants are liable for the cost of repairs to the walls which totalled $1,110.00. I note that the premises had been fully renovated at the start of the tenancy in 2021, some 4 years previously. After making allowance for depreciation and adopting a 12-year economic life for the paintwork, the award would be $750.00. I award $550.00 as this was the insurance excess stated in the tenancy agreement, and the tenants were not notified of an increase to the excess (as they should have been pursuant to section 13 of the Act). Curtains and Cleaning
The landlord claimed $100.00 to replace the lounge curtains. The tenants said they replaced some of the curtains during the tenancy and left these in place when they left. The original curtains were returned to the landlord. The landlord said both sets of curtains were mouldy. The landlord left a box of curtains behind at the hearing, which the tenant’s said were the landlord’s original curtains not the replacements.
There were no photographs of the original curtains, and the Tribunal was not invited to inspect the curtains brought to the hearing. The condition of the replacement curtains, which the tenants left for the landlord’s use when they left, is unknown. I decline to award compensation.
The landlord referred to cleaning in the bathroom and showed a video at the hearing. There was no documentary support for the cleaning cost, which was not particularised. I also note that the tenants paid for professional cleaning and their photographs show a reasonably clean property. I decline to award compensation. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
Both parties have had some success. I would usually direct that the parties bear their own costs in that situation. However, as noted above, the landlord was permitted to bring an oral application without paying the Tribunal fee. The tenants followed the correct procedure and paid the filing fee. I award the filing fee to the tenants.
The tenants requested suppression. They have not been “wholly or substantially” successful in the proceeding (section 95A). I decline suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5351223 — net $128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Damage to walls	$550.00		Damage to walls
Failure to maintain fence		$650.00	Failure to maintain fence
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$550.00	$678.00
Net award		$128.00
Bond		$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$128.00

Order

[The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $128.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5389318-005) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person on 3 February 2026.
On 25 September 2025, the tenant applied for a refund of the bond and compensation. At the hearing, the landlord made a claim against the bond but had not filed an application as required by section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). I allowed the landlord to present their claim in the interests of finality. Background
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a 12-month fixed term from 23 July 2021 at a weekly rent of $650.00. A bond of $2,600.00 was paid and lodged.
The tenancy continued and the tenants vacated on or about 16 September 2025. Water Invoices
The tenants spoke to written submissions at the hearing. They explained that the landlord did not provide copies of water invoices on a regular basis, causing budgeting issues. The landlord would provide no invoices for 7-8 months and then provide them all at once.
The landlord said she had computer problems.
There is an implied term that landlords will provide water invoices to tenants within a reasonable time when they are received (Woollams v Simpson (DC Auckland, CIV 2005-404-1583, 16 March 2006)). This allows tenants to manage their cash flow.
I acknowledge the difficulties the landlord’s failure or inability to do this caused the tenants, however, I did not understand the tenants to be seeking any further remedy. There are no outstanding water charges. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenants claimed compensation and exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment. This mainly related to an incident on 12 July 2025 during a visit by the landlord to mow the lawns. The tenant said the landlord knocked on the door, interrupting his online work meeting, and demanded that he come outside to discuss an issue with building waste at the premises. The tenant explained: I was yelled at, in front of my children, and repeatedly told I clearly was not looking after the property. This interaction was so intense his teenage children all turned off their lawnmowers and watched. Builders working on the neighbouring property also stopped work and watched. This was embarrassing, unreasonable and made my children fearful of [the landlords]. I was left shaken, and this feeling of uneasiness left me unable to focus at work at times over the following weeks.
The landlord explained that the tenant had brought building waste onto the premises which he had agreed to remove. The next time the landlord came the spoil was still there. The landlord denied shouting and said his children were not interested in the conversation, as they were helping him with the lawn and were wearing ear protection. The landlord admitted that he was frustrated because the tenant had not removed the spoil, and further waste had been dumped along the southern boundary.
Both parties impressed the Tribunal as being honest witnesses. The Tribunal can accept that they have different recollections of the incident. The landlord may have appeared unduly aggressive to the tenant because he was frustrated. The landlord may have had reason to feel that way. It may also be the case that the lawn mowing continued in the background and required the landlord to speak loudly.
Ultimately, I am not satisfied that the landlord’s behaviour was unreasonable or that the tenant’s quiet enjoyment was breached. While the tenant’s work meeting was interrupted, the landlord did not know the tenant worked from home and there was always a risk that such meetings might be disturbed by visitors. The landlord was entitled to knock on the door and ask for a meeting and the tenant was entitled to decline. Toilet
The landlord alleged that the toilet seat was found to be filthy at the inspection on 19 July 2025. The landlord said this related to unhygienic use of the toilet. The tenants said the staining was caused by limescale. The tenants said the landlord initially agreed to replace the toilet seat before informing them that it was too dirty to be attended to by a tradesperson. The landlord acknowledged at the hearing that the toilet needed to be cleaned before it could be fixed (see also the landlord’s email dated 17 August 2025). There had previously been a problem with the flush mechanism falling down the toilet causing a blockage in March 2024, which the tenants paid to fix. The toilet cistern needed further repair in July 2025.
The tenants said they were able to clean the toilet after multiple applications of a descaling product. The tenants said they were embarrassed by the state of the toilet seat and stopped having visitors. It is the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises and the tenant’s obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean. I consider the landlord was mistaken in adopting the view that the cistern repair could not take place until the seat had been cleaned. The landlord could have arranged for professional cleaning, on-charged this cost to the tenants, and organised repairs. The landlord might have considered replacing the toilet seat if it could be done so inexpensively. However, because I am unable to determine the cause of the toilet stain, I am unable to find either party in breach of their respective obligations. Boundary Fence
The tenants said the fence was in poor condition and had blown over during a storm in January 2022. The tenant said he repeatedly informed the landlord of the issue and explained how he had attempted to brace the fence. The tenant said in mid-2025 he showed the landlord a repair he had performed. The photographs provided by the tenant show the fence in a poor condition, with missing palings, exposed rusting nails, and the use bracing to keep the fence somewhat upright.
The landlord said they first knew of a problem with the northern boundary fence, which was leaning over, at the inspection on 19 July 2025. The landlord said the fence was fixed and the builder was paid on 11 September 2025 (see the invoice for fence repairs dated 7 September 2025).
I find that the landlord failed to maintain the fence. Its condition would have affected the tenant’s privacy to an extent. The exposed nails and the risk of collapse were a health hazard. While the landlord said they were unaware of repairs being performed by the tenant and generally denied knowledge about its condition, I consider this would have been evident at inspections or when the landlord came to mow the lawns. The fence was dilapidated. I award compensation of $650.00 (one week’s rent). Final Inspection
The tenant said they had an agreement with the landlord following the final inspection about the work that needed to be done at the premises. The tenants were to be allowed to perform the repairs. The next day the landlord changed her mind and said that they would arrange the repairs.
In my view, the landlord was entitled to decide to perform the repairs themselves. At the end of a tenancy, a tenant has an obligation to vacate and to return the keys. A landlord has no obligation to permit tenants to remain or to re-enter to perform repairs once the tenancy had ended. While the tenants might have been able to repair at less expense, this must be balanced against the landlord’s right to decide how their property is fixed and by which tradespeople. A landlord does not breach their duty to take all reasonable steps to mitigate loss simply by deciding to use their own contractors to perform repairs. Damage
The landlord claimed $360.00 for repairs to the dining room walls and $750.00 for repairs to small holes in the walls in a bedroom. Supporting invoices were provided. The tenants said the line of holes were caused by their daughter putting up pictures.
I find that this was more than fair wear and tear. Strictly speaking, permission was required for holes to be made in the walls, although this would likely be seen as a “minor change”. The landlord would not be able to withhold consent for a minor change.
However, the tenant would then have been under an obligation to return the premises to substantially the same condition that they were in before the minor change (see sections 42A and 42B of the Act). The tenant’s liability to make good in this context does not appear to be limited to the insurance excess, in the same way as damage caused by removal of a fixture or carelessly caused damage (see sections 42(6) and 49B of the Act).
There were also about two other areas of damage to the walls, one in a bedroom that may have been caused by the tenant’s desk and the other in the dining room from the tenant’s plant.
I find that the tenants are liable for the cost of repairs to the walls which totalled $1,110.00. I note that the premises had been fully renovated at the start of the tenancy in 2021, some 4 years previously. After making allowance for depreciation and adopting a 12-year economic life for the paintwork, the award would be $750.00. I award $550.00 as this was the insurance excess stated in the tenancy agreement, and the tenants were not notified of an increase to the excess (as they should have been pursuant to section 13 of the Act). Curtains and Cleaning
The landlord claimed $100.00 to replace the lounge curtains. The tenants said they replaced some of the curtains during the tenancy and left these in place when they left. The original curtains were returned to the landlord. The landlord said both sets of curtains were mouldy. The landlord left a box of curtains behind at the hearing, which the tenant’s said were the landlord’s original curtains not the replacements.
There were no photographs of the original curtains, and the Tribunal was not invited to inspect the curtains brought to the hearing. The condition of the replacement curtains, which the tenants left for the landlord’s use when they left, is unknown. I decline to award compensation.
The landlord referred to cleaning in the bathroom and showed a video at the hearing. There was no documentary support for the cleaning cost, which was not particularised. I also note that the tenants paid for professional cleaning and their photographs show a reasonably clean property. I decline to award compensation. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
Both parties have had some success. I would usually direct that the parties bear their own costs in that situation. However, as noted above, the landlord was permitted to bring an oral application without paying the Tribunal fee. The tenants followed the correct procedure and paid the filing fee. I award the filing fee to the tenants.
The tenants requested suppression. They have not been “wholly or substantially” successful in the proceeding (section 95A). I decline suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5351223 — State of repair at 13 Dalry Place, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5351223 — State of repair at 13 Dalry Place, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions