Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356699 — State of repair at 219A Hursthouse Street, Lower Moutere, RD 2, Lower

Decided 6 January 2026 · Published 6 January 2026 · Application 5356699

Dismissed

State of repair
Property damage

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Dismissed

From published order

Location

Lower Moutere

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

N Bradley

Dispute themes

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356699. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The landlord was represented at the hearing by two property managers.
The tenant has applied for compensation of $500 (the insurance excess) from the landlord in relation to an insurance claim for damage to her car by a cow that was on the tenancy premises. The landlord is denying responsibility for the damage. Parties
The tenant has named Summit Property Management Limited (the agent) as the landlord. The tenancy agreement records Mel and Jo Skelton (the owners) as the landlord. The agent has provided evidence that they are the property manager acting as agent for the landlord and the tenant was informed that they were the landlord’s agent during the tenancy. Accordingly, I have amended the respondent to record Summit Property Management Limited is the agent for Mel and Jo Skelton, but for ease of reference they will be referred to as the landlord in this decision.
The landlord applied to add the neighbouring tenant, Mr Williams Jones (Mr Jones) as a second respondent. Mr Jones is the grazier of the land surrounding the premises.
The Tribunal can only consider disputes under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant, and relate to any tenancy to which the RTA applies or to which the RTA did apply at any material time. 1
There is no jurisdiction for the neighbouring tenant to be a party to the proceeding as they are neither a landlord or tenant. The application to add Mr Jones as a party was declined at the outset of the hearing. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the RTA. With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations:
That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un- likely, 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.” 1 See section 77 (1) (a) - (b) of the RTA.
In deciding any particular 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. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. The evidence
The tenancy commenced in May 2024 and ended in October 2025. The tenancy was periodic. The property is rural and the tenant’s premises was surrounded by farmland.
The premises was adjacent to the landlord’s home. The tenant says that from July 2025 to September 2025 on 12-14 occasions Mr Jones’s livestock would wander onto the property. She says on 11 September 2025 a wandering cow damaged her vehicle while it was parked in the carport. The tenant says she heard the cow in the carport and the landlord, Ms Skelton was also in the carport. The landlord accepts that a cow damaged the tenant’s vehicle.
While the tenant accepts that Mr Jones is responsible for the cow, she says the landlord also has obligations which they have breached in respect of maintaining the fence. The tenant provided photographs of the poor fencing she says were taken on 30 September 2025. It is unclear where in relation to the home the photographs were taken. The tenant says she had some discussions with the landlord, Ms Skelton, about the cattle but these were about ensuring the gate was closed so the cattle did not get onto the road. 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667
The landlord provided photographs of the gate and fence in place to prevent livestock wandering taken in early November 2025 and the grazing agreement with Mr Jones which confirms the landlord had an agreement with Mr Jones for Mr Jones to be responsible for maintaining the fences and gates. The property manager said they did not assess the fencing at the inspection that was undertaken shortly after the damage to the tenant’s car occurred.
The landlord had Mr Jones give evidence. Mr Jones acknowledged that the cattle were walking through the electric fence and he indicated that he initially accepted he would pay for the damage to the car but has effectively since changed his mind. Failure to maintain
The landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 3
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 4 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 5 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 6 the Court stated: [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, 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 may be.
However, landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation. 3 See section 45 (1)(b) of the RTA 4 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 5 Section 40(1)(d) RTA 6 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]
In this case the tenant says the landlord did not ensure that her property was safe and the fencing was correct for the cattle. She says the landlord was aware the cattle were entering the property. However, it is not clear that the landlord was aware that the cattle were persistently breaking through the fence and it is not clear that the tenant advised the landlord that she considered the landlord should address issues with the maintenance of the fencing.
The landlord said that the cow that caused the damage to the tenant’s car pushed through an electric fence and the fence was repaired afterwards. The landlord said that if the tenant had told them there was an ongoing issue with the fencing they would probably have dealt with the issue.
While I consider that the landlord had a responsibility to ensure Mr Jones maintained the fencing, I am not satisfied on the evidence provided by that tenant that she has proven there was a ongoing issue with the fencing and it is not clear that the landlord was on notice of the issue and that the tenant required the landlord to remedy it. It appears that the tenant was advising Mr Jones of the livestock being on the property, however it is not clear what the landlord had observed in terms of the fencing and to what extent the landlord was aware of how often livestock were on the property as a result of an issue with the fencing.
The burden of proving this claim is on the tenant. I am not satisfied that the evidence provided has been such that I can be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the landlord has failed to maintain the fencing. The claim is dismissed. Breach of landlord responsibility – other tenants.
Section 45(1)(e) of the RTA provides the landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. 7
The tribunal has generally applied to a 3-stage analysis to applications brought under section 45 (1)(e) RTA: a. First, has there been an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises? b. Secondly, has the interference been caused or permitted by another tenant of the landlord? 7 See section 45(1) (e) of the RTA. c. Where the answer is yes to the above two questions, has the landlord taken all reasonable steps to ensure the interference did not or does not continue?
The Tribunal decision of Joseph-Gordon v Housing New Zealand 8 provides helpful commentary, as follows:
The words “permit” includes “turning a blind eye to the obvious or not taking any reasonable steps to prevent”.... ...21. Under the law HNZC has a positive obligation to “take all reasonable steps” to ensure none of their other tenants cause or permit an interference with the peace comfort or privacy of other tenants. I make the following observations regarding the landlord’s responsibilities under section 45 (1) (e) RTA: (a) First, I note that section requires the landlord to take all reasonable steps to prevent the interference; (b) Second, what might be considered a “reasonable step” must be assessed in relation to the given set of circumstances. A landlord may respond in a different manner depending on the nature of the complaint, for example a complaint about isolated case of noise will likely be dealt with quite differently to a complaint involving allegations of criminal conduct. The nature, extent and impact of the tenant’s breach will become crucial in any analysis of “reasonable steps” taken by the landlord. (c) Third, the concept of reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises is a fundamental requirement under tenancy law. It involves the right to live and enjoy the premises in peace and without reasonable disturbance. Premises extends to non-exclusive areas such as shared lawns, gardens and facilities. Under the law tenants have the right to quiet enjoyment but they also have a responsibility to ensure their behaviour and the behaviour of their visitors do not interfere with their neighbour’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. Quiet enjoyment under the law is qualified by the concept of reasonableness. This may mean that some potentially unpleasant disputes or differences of opinion between tenants or a personality conflict with your neighbour will unlikely qualify as an infringement of reasonable quiet enjoyment.
The tenant said that she was raised on a farm and she accepted that stock get out at times. The tenant says between 5 July 2025 and 28 September 2025 the 8 Joseph-Gordon v Housing New Zealand [2019] NZTT 4177138 cattle were on the tenancy property 12-14 times. She says she text messaged Mr Jones about the cattle 12 times. She did not produce the text messages in evidence or provide date stamped photographs showing when the cattle were on the tenancy premises. I am not satisfied on the evidence provided by the tenant that she has proven the frequency of the cattle wandering on the property. This was a rural property and the occasional wandering cow in my view, could not be considered to amount to an interference of the tenant’s reasonable peace and comfort of the property.
However, if I am wrong in that finding, I consider a tenant must notify the landlord of interference by the landlord’s other tenants. In this case the tenant did not place the landlord on notice that she considered Mr Jones (by way of not preventing his livestock to wander) to be interfering with her peace and comfort of the property and advise the landlord or the property manager of the extent of the issue. The landlord had entered into a grazing agreement with Mr Jones, and it appears the tenant raised the concerns with Mr Jones directly for him to address, instead of the landlord.
The burden of proving this claim is on the tenant. I am not satisfied that the evidence provided has been such that I can be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the landlord has failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the landlord’s other tenant did not cause interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant. The claim is dismissed. Filing fee and Suppression
As the tenant has not been successful with the claim I have not reimbursed the filing fee.
Neither party sought name suppression.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

State of repair Property damage Lower Moutere

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s4, s40(1), s45, s45(1), s77, s8

Key findings

Dispute theme: state of repair
Dispute theme: property damage

Property management

Summit Property Management Limited as agent for Mel and Jo Skelton (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5356699?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5356699?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356699?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356699?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12930702-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.

The landlord was represented at the hearing by two property managers.

The tenant has applied for compensation of $500 (the insurance excess) from the landlord in relation to an insurance claim for damage to her car by a cow that was on the tenancy premises. The landlord is denying responsibility for the damage. Parties

The tenant has named Summit Property Management Limited (the agent) as the landlord. The tenancy agreement records Mel and Jo Skelton (the owners) as the landlord. The agent has provided evidence that they are the property manager acting as agent for the landlord and the tenant was informed that they were the landlord’s agent during the tenancy. Accordingly, I have amended the respondent to record Summit Property Management Limited is the agent for Mel and Jo Skelton, but for ease of reference they will be referred to as the landlord in this decision.

The landlord applied to add the neighbouring tenant, Mr Williams Jones (Mr Jones) as a second respondent. Mr Jones is the grazier of the land surrounding the premises.

The Tribunal can only consider disputes under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant, and relate to any tenancy to which the RTA applies or to which the RTA did apply at any material time. 1

There is no jurisdiction for the neighbouring tenant to be a party to the proceeding as they are neither a landlord or tenant. The application to add Mr Jones as a party was declined at the outset of the hearing. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the RTA. With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations:

That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un- likely, 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.” 1 See section 77 (1) (a) - (b) of the RTA.

In deciding any particular 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. Compensation

The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. The evidence

The tenancy commenced in May 2024 and ended in October 2025. The tenancy was periodic. The property is rural and the tenant’s premises was surrounded by farmland.

The premises was adjacent to the landlord’s home. The tenant says that from July 2025 to September 2025 on 12-14 occasions Mr Jones’s livestock would wander onto the property. She says on 11 September 2025 a wandering cow damaged her vehicle while it was parked in the carport. The tenant says she heard the cow in the carport and the landlord, Ms Skelton was also in the carport. The landlord accepts that a cow damaged the tenant’s vehicle.

While the tenant accepts that Mr Jones is responsible for the cow, she says the landlord also has obligations which they have breached in respect of maintaining the fence. The tenant provided photographs of the poor fencing she says were taken on 30 September 2025. It is unclear where in relation to the home the photographs were taken. The tenant says she had some discussions with the landlord, Ms Skelton, about the cattle but these were about ensuring the gate was closed so the cattle did not get onto the road. 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667

The landlord provided photographs of the gate and fence in place to prevent livestock wandering taken in early November 2025 and the grazing agreement with Mr Jones which confirms the landlord had an agreement with Mr Jones for Mr Jones to be responsible for maintaining the fences and gates. The property manager said they did not assess the fencing at the inspection that was undertaken shortly after the damage to the tenant’s car occurred.

The landlord had Mr Jones give evidence. Mr Jones acknowledged that the cattle were walking through the electric fence and he indicated that he initially accepted he would pay for the damage to the car but has effectively since changed his mind. Failure to maintain

The landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 3

The extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 4 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 5 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.

In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 6 the Court stated: [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, 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 may be.

However, landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation. 3 See section 45 (1)(b) of the RTA 4 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 5 Section 40(1)(d) RTA 6 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]

In this case the tenant says the landlord did not ensure that her property was safe and the fencing was correct for the cattle. She says the landlord was aware the cattle were entering the property. However, it is not clear that the landlord was aware that the cattle were persistently breaking through the fence and it is not clear that the tenant advised the landlord that she considered the landlord should address issues with the maintenance of the fencing.

The landlord said that the cow that caused the damage to the tenant’s car pushed through an electric fence and the fence was repaired afterwards. The landlord said that if the tenant had told them there was an ongoing issue with the fencing they would probably have dealt with the issue.

While I consider that the landlord had a responsibility to ensure Mr Jones maintained the fencing, I am not satisfied on the evidence provided by that tenant that she has proven there was a ongoing issue with the fencing and it is not clear that the landlord was on notice of the issue and that the tenant required the landlord to remedy it. It appears that the tenant was advising Mr Jones of the livestock being on the property, however it is not clear what the landlord had observed in terms of the fencing and to what extent the landlord was aware of how often livestock were on the property as a result of an issue with the fencing.

The burden of proving this claim is on the tenant. I am not satisfied that the evidence provided has been such that I can be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the landlord has failed to maintain the fencing. The claim is dismissed. Breach of landlord responsibility – other tenants.

Section 45(1)(e) of the RTA provides the landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. 7

The tribunal has generally applied to a 3-stage analysis to applications brought under section 45 (1)(e) RTA: a. First, has there been an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises? b. Secondly, has the interference been caused or permitted by another tenant of the landlord? 7 See section 45(1) (e) of the RTA. c. Where the answer is yes to the above two questions, has the landlord taken all reasonable steps to ensure the interference did not or does not continue?

The Tribunal decision of Joseph-Gordon v Housing New Zealand 8 provides helpful commentary, as follows:

The words “permit” includes “turning a blind eye to the obvious or not taking any reasonable steps to prevent”.... ...21. Under the law HNZC has a positive obligation to “take all reasonable steps” to ensure none of their other tenants cause or permit an interference with the peace comfort or privacy of other tenants. I make the following observations regarding the landlord’s responsibilities under section 45 (1) (e) RTA: (a) First, I note that section requires the landlord to take all reasonable steps to prevent the interference; (b) Second, what might be considered a “reasonable step” must be assessed in relation to the given set of circumstances. A landlord may respond in a different manner depending on the nature of the complaint, for example a complaint about isolated case of noise will likely be dealt with quite differently to a complaint involving allegations of criminal conduct. The nature, extent and impact of the tenant’s breach will become crucial in any analysis of “reasonable steps” taken by the landlord. (c) Third, the concept of reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises is a fundamental requirement under tenancy law. It involves the right to live and enjoy the premises in peace and without reasonable disturbance. Premises extends to non-exclusive areas such as shared lawns, gardens and facilities. Under the law tenants have the right to quiet enjoyment but they also have a responsibility to ensure their behaviour and the behaviour of their visitors do not interfere with their neighbour’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. Quiet enjoyment under the law is qualified by the concept of reasonableness. This may mean that some potentially unpleasant disputes or differences of opinion between tenants or a personality conflict with your neighbour will unlikely qualify as an infringement of reasonable quiet enjoyment.

The tenant said that she was raised on a farm and she accepted that stock get out at times. The tenant says between 5 July 2025 and 28 September 2025 the 8 Joseph-Gordon v Housing New Zealand [2019] NZTT 4177138 cattle were on the tenancy property 12-14 times. She says she text messaged Mr Jones about the cattle 12 times. She did not produce the text messages in evidence or provide date stamped photographs showing when the cattle were on the tenancy premises. I am not satisfied on the evidence provided by the tenant that she has proven the frequency of the cattle wandering on the property. This was a rural property and the occasional wandering cow in my view, could not be considered to amount to an interference of the tenant’s reasonable peace and comfort of the property.

However, if I am wrong in that finding, I consider a tenant must notify the landlord of interference by the landlord’s other tenants. In this case the tenant did not place the landlord on notice that she considered Mr Jones (by way of not preventing his livestock to wander) to be interfering with her peace and comfort of the property and advise the landlord or the property manager of the extent of the issue. The landlord had entered into a grazing agreement with Mr Jones, and it appears the tenant raised the concerns with Mr Jones directly for him to address, instead of the landlord.

The burden of proving this claim is on the tenant. I am not satisfied that the evidence provided has been such that I can be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the landlord has failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the landlord’s other tenant did not cause interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant. The claim is dismissed. Filing fee and Suppression

As the tenant has not been successful with the claim I have not reimbursed the filing fee.

Neither party sought name suppression.