What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5361914?

The tribunal order states: Stuart Senior and Michele Jordan must pay Abbee Christina Mcfarlane and

How much money was awarded in case 5361914?

Compensation: failure to comply insu…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: refund electricity pay…: $404.30 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $25.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Soffits: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $210.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361914?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361914?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13286019-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5361914?

The tribunal order states: Stuart Senior and Michele Jordan must pay Abbee Christina Mcfarlane and

How much money was awarded in case 5361914?

Compensation: failure to comply insu…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: refund electricity pay…: $404.30 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $25.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Soffits: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $210.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361914?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361914?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13286019-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

37 Scott Street, Leamington, Cambridge 3432 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5361914 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361914 — net $68.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$500.00		Retaliatory notice
Water rates: to 05 November 2025	$210.82		Water rates: to 05 November 2025
Repairs: soffits	$400.00		Repairs: soffits
Rent arrears to 05 November 2025		$500.00	Rent arrears to 05 November 2025
Compensation: refund electricity payments		$404.30	refund electricity payments
Compensation: failure to comply insulation HHS		$50.00	failure to comply insulation HHS
Exemplary damages: Bond		$50.00	Bond
Exemplary damages: Receipts		$25.00	Receipts
Exemplary damages: HHS		$150.00	HHS
Total award	$1,110.82	$1,179.30
Net award		$68.48
Bond		$650.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$68.48

Stuart Senior and Michele Jordan must pay Abbee Christina Mcfarlane and Anthony Lloyd Jones $68.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $650.00 (BN-00157468) to Abbee Christina Mcfarlane and Anthony Lloyd Jones immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Background

On 9 October 2025, the tenant filed a claim with the Tribunal. The tenancy agreement included with the application suggested that the parties had entered into a boarding arrangement excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act), under section 5(1)(n). This section states that if the landlord (or their family) continues to use the premises principally as their place of residence during the tenancy, and it is not a boarding house, the Act does not apply.

On 03 November 2025, the claim was scheduled for a telephone hearing on 11 November 2025 to determine whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claims made by the tenant.

At the hearing, the landlord stated that the tenant had no place to stay and could not raise a bond. Out of sympathy for the tenant, they had offered them a room in their own home. On 1 May 2025, the parties signed an agreement to “share home including kitchen, bathroom, toilet, and laundry. Owners use one bedroom, boarders have use of two bedrooms.” The “board” was $275.00 per person.

There are two dwellings on the property: a main house consisting of three bedrooms, kitchen, lounge, dining room, bathroom, toilet, and laundry, and a second dwelling, referred to as a “tiny house,” which is self-contained. The landlord stated that, despite entering into a boarding agreement, they had decided shortly before its commencement not to share the main house with the tenant, and subsequently moved into the second dwelling.

From 1 May 2024 to 5 November 2025, when the tenant vacated the property, apart from shared use of a garage, the tenant otherwise had exclusive possession of the main house.

The tenant stated that shortly before signing the agreement the landlord had suggested that they enter into a boarding agreement which the landlord acknowledged would not reflect the true nature of the agreement, which was that the parties were in fact entering into a residential tenancy agreement. The tenant stated that the landlord never shared the main house and that from day one they had exclusive possession and use of the entire house. Law

Section 77(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.

Section 2(1) defines a tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, as any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.

Section 4 confirms that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.

Section 5(1)(n) of the Act provides that the Act does not apply: “Where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.”

Section 10 of the Act provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, the party asserting the exclusion (usually the landlord) has the burden of proving that section 5(1)(n) applies.

In determining whether the exclusion applies, the Tribunal must consider the substance of the agreement and the actual living arrangements, rather than the labels used by the parties (see Harding v Schellevis, Tan and Caroto NZHC 1265).

In determining whether the exclusion in section 5(1)(n) applies, the Tribunal will consider: a. Whether the landlord (or their family) continued to use the premises as their principal place of residence during the tenancy. b. Whether the facilities (kitchen, bathroom, laundry, etc.) were shared between the landlord and the tenant. c. Whether the arrangement was more similar to a flatting or house- sharing situation, or whether the tenant had exclusive possession of a self-contained dwelling.

If the landlord lives in the premises and shared facilities with the tenant, the exclusion in section 5(1)(n) is likely to apply, and the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction.

If the tenant has exclusive possession of a self-contained dwelling and the landlord lived elsewhere, the exclusion does not apply, and the Tribunal will have jurisdiction. Decision on jurisdiction

The Tribunal found while there was a dispute as to why the parties labelled their agreement as a boarding agreement, prima facie excluded under section 5(1)(n), they had, in fact, entered into an agreement that is not excluded. The tenant had exclusive possession of the main house and its facilities and did not share them with the landlord, who resided nearby in their own self-contained property. During the hearing, the landlord acknowledged the facts establishing such an arrangement but suggested that they had become an accidental landlord. Although this point is in dispute, it did not alter the determination that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claims made by the tenant.

The Tribunal conducted a Case Management Conference and then adjourned. On 15 December 2025, the landlord filed a counterclaim. Both claims where linked and scheduled for hearing before me on 20 February 2026.

The landlord disputed the Tribunal’s jurisdiction finding, although did not apply for a rehearing or file an appeal with the Court. Claims

The tenant’s claims are that the landlord: i. Failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition (ranchslider) (section 45(1)(b) and 45(1A) of the Act), ii. Failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards relating to insulation and moisture ingress (section 45(1) (bb) and 45(1A) of the Act), iii. Failed to provide a written tenancy agreement (section 13 and 13(4)) iv. Failed to provide a chattels list (section13A(1)(o) and 13A(1AAA)), v. Failed to provide Healthy Homes standards information with the agreement (section 131A) and 13A(1F) (a)), vi. Failed to lodge the bond within the required time period (section 19(1) and 19(2)) vii. Failed to provide receipts for rent paid in cash (section 29(1) and 29(5)) viii. Interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy amounting to harassment (looking through windows) (section 38(1) and 38(3)) ix. Failed to provide Healthy Homes information when requested (section 45(1AC) and (1AD) (a)) x. Failed to provide insurance policy when requested (section 45(2B) and 45(2D)) xi. Failed to provide results of contamination test (section 48(3B) and 48(4)(c)) xii. Issued a retaliatory termination notice (section 54(1) and 54(6)) xiii. Had entered into a “boarding” agreement with the intention of contravening the provisions of the Act (section 137(1) and 137(2)) xiv. That the landlord has claimed electricity and water charges not exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises (section 39 (1))

The tenant is seeking a refund of their bond, compensation of $3,000.00, and the maximum award of exemplary damages of $28,750.00. Landlord’s claims

The landlord’s claims and that the tenant: i. Owes rent arrears. ii. Owes outstanding water rates (section 39 of the Act) iii. Failed to leave the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition (section 40 of the Act) iv. Is responsible for damage that is more than fair wear and tear (section 49B of the Act) v. Interfered with the reasonable peace comfort and privacy of the landlord and the landlord’s other tenants and neighbours (section 40(2) of the Act)

The landlord is seeking compensation, exemplary damages, and general damages for pain and suffering.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the party making them. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. Each party must establish that it is more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or the provisions of the Act. Tenant’s claims Failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition.

The tenant produced an up-close photograph showing condensation forming on the inside of a ranchslider. The tenant stated that the ranchslider leaked, causing moisture and dampness. The tenant has produced a photograph taken on 20 June 2025 showing the ranchslider removed and the surrounding sill area being repaired. The tenant stated they had initially raised the matter in August 2024. Despite mentioning to the landlord on several occasions that the property was cold and damp, nothing was done.

The landlord stated that the ranchslider was located on the east side of the property facing away from the direction from which unsettled weather usually came. Their initial inspection revealed that a draft strip had become dislodged, this was replaced. They stated that as the ranchslider only leaked when unsettled weather came from the west, which had only been twice, that it was difficult to determine the source. Ultimately, the source of the leak was determined and the sill around the ranchslider was replaced in June 2025. The landlord does not consider the delay to be unreasonable. Failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards relating to insulation and moisture ingress.

The tenant stated that around 05 October 2025 they looked underneath the house and noted that there was no underfloor insulation. The tenant had produced photographs showing underneath the house. In the photographs there appears to be sufficient crawl space. The tenant did not raise this with the landlord, and it has been raised as an issue in the application for the first time.

The landlord stated that as they believed they had entered into a boarding agreement that they had not considered the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord stated that when the ceiling insulation had been installed in 2018 that the installer had stated that the crawl space may not have been sufficient, and the underfloor area may have been exempt. The landlord stated that after the tenant vacated, they had some installed. They stated that the installer had to move some soil in some areas. Failed to provide a written tenancy agreement.

The tenant claims that the landlord failed to provide a tenancy agreement that complies with the provisions of the Act.

The landlord stated they provided an agreement they believed reflected the status of the relationship they had entered. Failed to provide a chattels list.

The tenant claims that the landlord failed to provide a chattels list that complies with the provisions of the Act.

The landlord stated that while they had left furniture inside because of the nature of the agreement they had not considered them to be chattels.

The landlord stated at the time they did not believe they were required to provide a chattels list. Failed to provide Healthy Homes standards information with the agreement.

The tenant claims that the landlord failed to provide a statement of compliance with the HHS.

The landlord stated at the time they did not believe they were required to provide a statement of compliance. Failed to lodge the bond within the required time period.

The tenant claims that the landlord failed to pay the bond to the Bond Centre within the required time period.

The landlord stated that the tenant paid a total of $650.00 toward the bond of $1,600.00 with online payments of $100.00 on 08 November 2024, $100.00 on 10 December 2024, $150.00 on 28 February 2025, and $50.00 in March 2025. In addition, the tenant made a cash payment of $250.00.

The landlord stated that they had not lodged the bond and had been waiting until it had been paid in full. Failed to provide receipts for rent paid in cash.

The tenant stated that while most of the rent payments were made online that from time to time, they topped up the rent with cash payments but had not received a receipt. The tenant was unable to provide details of how or when they made these payments.

The landlord accepted that the tenant had made some top up payments in cash. They stated that the rent summary recorded all of the rent payments received.

There was no challenge to the landlord’s rent summary. Interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy amounting to harassment.

The tenant states that throughout the tenancy that one of the landlords would regularly peer into the property while accessing their own property at the rear. The tenant has produced a handwritten sign they placed in the window stating “Nosey.” The tenant stated that one evening at around 10.30pm they caught one of the landlords with their face against the window attempting to look inside. They did not raise this with the landlord during the tenancy and have raised it for the first time in the application.

The tenant stated that around October 2025, the landlord installed a CCTV camera at the front of the property. The tenant raised a concern that it was capturing their property, and it was immediately removed.

The tenant stated that on or about June 2024 they had been outside cleaning vehicles when the vacuum cleaner suddenly went off. They stated that they looked inside and saw one of the landlords inside the property who laughed and then walked out. The tenant believed that the landlord had entered the property and unplugged the vacuum cleaner. The tenant did not seek an explanation from the landlord at the time. The tenant stated they had captured the incident on their own CCTV camera but were unable to provide the evidence.

The landlord denied the allegation that they had entered the property without permission. They stated that they parked their vehicle at the front of the section and walked past the tenant’s house to get to theirs. They stated that moving from the front to the rear of the section looking at their feet was unreasonable. They denied intentionally glancing through the windows and the allegation that they had pressed their face against the window to peer inside. They stated that they parked their campervan at the front of the section and had installed a camera for security reasons. When the tenant advised that the camera captured a part of the tenant’s clotheslines, they removed the camera. Failed to provide Healthy Homes information when requested.

The tenant stated that they had made a request for an HHS statement in their 14- day notice issued 06 October 2025, but one had not been provided.

The landlord accepted that they had not provided one. Failed to provide insurance policy when requested.

The tenant stated that they had verbally requested details of the landlord’s insurance.

The landlord stated that they declined because they did not believe that their insurance would cover the tenant’s contents. Failed to provide results of contamination test.

On 07 August 2024, the landlord arranged for the property to be tested for methamphetamine. The tenant stated that the landlord did not disclose the results. The tenant did not request the results but had expected that they would have been provided.

The landlord stated that the results came back negative. They stated that a hardcopy of the results had been provided to the tenant when received. Issued a retaliatory termination notice.

The tenant stated that on 06 October 2025, they had issued the landlord with a 14-day notice. This was the only one issued during the tenancy. On 07 October 2025, they received a 42-day notice from the landlord terminating the tenancy on 15 November 2025. The tenant vacated the property on 05 November 2025. They did not give their own notice. After moving out they advised the landlord that the keys had been left on the bench.

The landlord denied that the notice was retaliatory. They stated that for a significant part of the tenancy the relationship with the tenant had been good. When and why the relationship deteriorated is disputed. The landlord stated that upon receiving the notice they sought legal advice suggesting that the agreement was null and void. Entered into a “boarding” agreement with the intention of contravening the provisions of the Act.

The landlord stated that they had become aware that the tenant was in a difficult financial position and could not afford to pay a bond nor was it clear they could make regular rent payments. The landlord decided that they would offer the tenant their house and they would move into a smaller self-contained dwelling at the rear of the section. The landlord decided to enter into a boarding agreement on the basis that if the arrangement were not financially viable for either party it could be ended with either party giving three weeks’ notice. The landlord denied that this was done to avoid paying tax or the provisions of the Act. The landlord stated that in 17 years of having rentals they had not been in this position before and have never been brought to the Tribunal.

The tenant stated that at the time they were homeless and needed a place to stay. The tenant stated that they did not realise that they had entered into a tenancy agreement until they had contacted Tenancy Services. However, they then later stated that they knew the arrangement did not reflect the actual relationship but considered themselves fortunate and had willingly entered the agreement. The tenant had previously been a party to a residential tenancy agreement with another landlord had had been involved in Tribunal proceedings in which they were an applicant.

They stated that initially the relationship with the landlord had been good but deteriorated in August 2025, when there had been warned by the landlord not to turn the HRV system off, after which the relationship had become awkward. They stated this continued when in September 2025 they revealed to the landlord that they were pregnant. Did the landlord claim electricity and water charges not exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises.

The tenant stated that they shared the water rates costs with the landlord. The tenant did some vehicle cleaning for others and had a verbal agreement that if the water used exceeded the usual amount that the tenant would pay extra. The tenant stated that they were not satisfied that their additional payments had been made for usage exclusively attributable to themselves, noting that the landlord maintained a swimming pool.

The tenant stated that there was an electricity check meter in the workshop which they had been told recorded the electricity used by the landlord. The tenant stated that they had agreed to pay $200.00 per month and that if the amount they used was less that they would receive a refund. The tenant stated that despite using as little power as possible they had never received a refund.

The tenant stated they were unsure whether the landlord’s check meter in fact recorded all of the landlord’s usage, noting that the landlord’s campervan had been connected to a power supply at the front of the section, and questioned whether it was covered by the check meter.

The tenant could not recall whether they had questioned the arrangement until it was raised in the 14-day notice.

The landlord produced a selection of water invoices and a handwritten analysis. They stated that two invoices for two consecutive quarterly periods leading up to the tenancy were $109.00 each. At the material time there were just two occupants, the two landlords.

The landlord stated that after the tenancy commenced the following six quarterly invoices between 09 May 2024 and 12 November 2025 had increased by $11.78, $74.63, $64.04, $41.09, $73.29, and $ 73.09. The landlord stated the increases reflected tenant’s occupation of the property, and the tenant conducting a vehicle cleaning service, with the landlord’s permission. The landlord stated that they covered all invoices, and had only sought contributions of $49.00 in June 2025, and $90.00 in September 2025. The landlord stated that the total use was $349.82 of which the tenant had paid $139.00. The landlord is seeking this amount in their counterclaim.

The landlord stated that upon receiving the electricity account they would divide the line rental in half ($84.00 each) and then deduct the units recorded by their check meter. They stated they had not provided the tenant with the invoice and had sent them a text message.

The landlord calculated that over the tenancy the total units used were 8966.00, of which they had used 979.20 units, and the tenant had used 7986.80 units. They stated that over the period the tenant had made electricity top-up payments totalling $404.30. Law

Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.

In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the 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 might be”.

Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence.

Section 45(1) (bb) requires the landlord to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS), which set out the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping for residential rental properties.

The Healthy Homes Standards require all rental properties to have adequate ceiling and underfloor insulation meeting minimum R-values. Exemptions for underfloor insulation apply in situations where it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation. The insulation must be maintained in a reasonable condition. For this tenancy, the insulation standards applied at the commencement.

Under section 13A) of the Act a tenancy agreement must by in writing and include a statement of compliance with the HHS, and if applicable a chattels list.

Section 19(1) of the Act states that upon receipt of the bond (whether the amount is for the whole or part of the bond), the landlord must lodge it with the Bond Centre within 23 working days.

Under section 29 (1) of the Act if the tenant makes any rent payments, unless they are provided with an updated rent summary, must be provided with a written receipt.

Under section 38(2) of the Act, a landlord must not cause or permit and interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

In the case of Smith v Floris, Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated: “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents....”

Under section 39(3) an interference that also amounts to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be awarded.

Harassment is not defined in the Act. In the case of MacDonald v Dodds, CIV- 2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010, the Court considered harassment to mean "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person”.

Whether interference has occurred will depend on the proven facts and an objective assessment of whether the act in question exceeds what a tenant could reasonably be expected to endure under the circumstances.

Under section 45(1AC) of the Act upon request the landlord must provide all Healthy Homes information they possess within a reasonable time.

Under section 45(2B) of the Act, if the property is insured, the landlord must provide a copy of the insurance policy when requested.

Under section 48(3B) of the Act , if the premises are entered for the purpose of testing for the presence of contaminants or taking samples for such testing (including as part of any decontamination process), the landlord must, within 7 days of receiving the results of the testing, notify the tenant, in writing, of the results of the testing and provide the tenant with a copy (if any) of the results.

Section 54 provides that a tenant may apply to the Tribunal for a declaration that a landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy is retaliatory.

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove more likely than not that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.

In the case of Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA 244/88, 03 November 1988, the Court held that a notice of termination given for genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory.

Section 137 of the Act states: 137 Prohibited transactions (1) No person shall— (a) enter into any transaction, or make any contract or arrangement, purporting to do, whether presently or at some future time or upon the happening of any event or contingency, anything that contravenes or will contravene any of the provisions of this Act; or Part 5 s 136A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (b) enter into any transaction or make any contract or arrangement, whether orally or in writing, or do anything, for the purpose of or having the effect of, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, defeating, evading, or preventing the operation of any of the provisions of this Act. (2) Requiring any person to enter into any transaction, or to make any contract or arrangement, in contravention of subsection (1) is hereby declared to be an unlawful act. (3) Subject to subsection (4), any provision of any transaction, contract, or arrangement entered into in contravention of subsection (1) that would have the effect of, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, defeating, evading, or preventing the operation of any of the provisions of this Act shall be of no effect. (4) All money paid and the value of any other consideration for the tenancy provided by the tenant (not being rent lawfully recoverable by the landlord) or, where the transaction takes the form of an option to purchase the premises to which the transaction relates, by the person on whom the option to purchase is conferred, shall be recoverable as a debt due to the tenant or prospective purchaser by the landlord

Under section 39 of the Act, the tenant is responsible for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises, such as electricity, gas, telephone, and water charges (water to the premises on the basis of consumption.

Where there has been a breach of the agreement or the provisions of the Act the non-breaching party is entitled to claim compensation for any loss suffered. The loss claimed must have naturally flowed from the breach and must be reasonably foreseeable. Damages may be awarded for measurable financial losses. Damages may also be awarded where the non-breaching party has not received what they bargained for under the tenancy agreement, resulting in a general loss of amenity or reduction in the use and enjoyment of the premises. Analysis and decision

In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it.

Regarding the allegation the landlord failed to maintain the property, in particular the ranchslider, in a reasonable condition. While the repair occurred several months after the issue was raised, I accept the landlord’s explanation that the source of the leak was difficult to identify, and only occurred during particular weather conditions. I am satisfied that, in the circumstances, they responded appropriately.

Having considered the evidence, including the photographic and video evidence produced, I am satisfied that for the duration of the tenancy there was no underfloor insulation. There is no evidence that installation was not reasonably practicable. The landlord has failed to comply with the HHS insulation standard for underfloor insulation. The property was otherwise insulated and had a heat pump and a fire. Although there may have been a loss of amenity, there is insufficient evidence to properly quantify the extent of any loss. In this case, I therefore award nominal damages of $50.00.

I will deal with the claims concerning the failure to provide a written tenancy agreement, a chattels list, and Healthy Homes standards compliance statement together. Despite referring to the relationship as a boarding arrangement, I have found that the relationship between the parties was in fact one of landlord and tenant. The written document records an agreement to grant the right of occupation in return for rent, in other words a tenancy agreement. I am satisfied that the landlord has provided a written tenancy agreement.

I am not satisfied that the parties necessarily turned their minds to whether the contents of the property were chattels; the agreement is silent on this. Not doing so would have been to the detriment of the landlord, who, had any damage occurred to the contents, may have had difficulty establishing that the tenant was liable. I dismiss that claim.

Concerning the HHS compliance statement, I am satisfied that one was not provided with the agreement.

When the landlord receives bond, either in full or in part, the provisions of the Act require the landlord to lodge it with the Bond Centre within 23 days of receipt. In this case, the landlord has received payments but did not lodge them until 10 October 2025. I am satisfied that there has been a breach.

The landlord accepts that they received cash payments and did not issue a receipt or provide an updated rent summary after each payment. The tenant does not have to request an invoice, and one should be provided by the landlord. I am satisfied there has been a breach.

It is highly likely that the landlord, from time to time, may have gazed at the windows. I accept the landlord’s evidence that making their way from the front of the section to the rear while only looking at the ground is not practicable. The tenant’s allegations also lack specificity. Apart from placing a sign in the window, the matter was not raised with the landlord during the tenancy. The CCTV camera installed by the landlord was removed soon after the tenant raised a concern that it may have been capturing their clothesline. There is a direct conflict between the landlord and tenant concerning the allegation that the landlord entered the property and unplugged the vacuum cleaner. The date given by the tenant suggests that this occurred when the relationship between the parties was good. The onus of proving the claim rests with the tenant.

On the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy amounting to harassment.

On 06 October 2025, the tenant requested that the landlord provide an HHS compliance statement. Notwithstanding their issuing of a 42-day notice soon afterwards, the landlord remained obligated to provide the document.

The landlord does not dispute that they failed to provide details of their insurance when required. They stated that they did not consider their policy relevant as they believed the tenant wished to determine whether the landlord’s insurance covered their own possessions, which it did not. Disclosure of the information is mandatory, the reasons why it may have been requested are irrelevant. I am satisfied that there has been a breach.

During the hearing, the landlord claimed that the results of the methamphetamine testing had been provided to the tenant after they had been received. This was not challenged by the tenant. The claim is dismissed.

The landlord issued a notice to terminate the tenancy on 7 October 2025, just one day after the tenant served a 14-day breach notice on 6 October 2025. The close timing between the tenant’s breach notice and the landlord’s termination notice is significant. The landlord’s legal advice to end the relationship on the grounds that it is “null and void” is not persuasive. Issuing a termination notice to avoid addressing the tenant’s 14-day breach notice is not a valid reason for ending the tenancy.

I am satisfied that the notice of termination was issued wholly in response to the tenant’s 14-day notice and is therefore retaliatory.

The landlord stated that they had been a landlord for seventeen years with no issues. It must therefore be presumed that they had knowledge of the Act. The landlord’s other tenants, who claim that the tenant interfered with their peace, comfort, and privacy, stated that they had entered into a trial month-by-month agreement with the landlord prior to entering into a periodic tenancy. Their evidence suggests that the landlord is familiar with the provisions of the Act and the nature of a landlord / tenant relationship. In this case, the landlord also wished to enter into a trial arrangement on the basis that they were unsure as to whether the tenant could meet a regular rent commitment. In my view the landlord has sought to label a residential tenancy agreement as a boarding agreement and, in doing so, attempted to avoid the provisions of the Act.

Section 137(4) is designed to protect tenants from unlawful or prohibited transactions and ensures that landlords cannot retain payments or benefits that are not allowed under the Act. In this case the parties entered a boarding agreement, when in fact their relationship was one of landlord and tenant under a residential tenancy agreement. The tenant paid rent for the right of occupation. Under section 137(4), rent was lawfully recoverable by the landlord. Accordingly, a rent refund is declined.

In their 14-day notice the tenant requested details of the electricity and water rates charges from the start of the tenancy. The landlord failed to provide these details. At the hearing, the landlord provided a handwritten record showing the total electricity units used for the period and a selection of water rates invoices and a breakdown of the water rates.

The information provided is insufficient to establish how the tenants share of the electricity was calculated. There is only a handwritten summary and no invoices. I am satisfied that it is more likely than not the landlord has claimed electricity charges not exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises.

In the absence of adequate records, it is difficult to determine the exact amount the tenant should pay for electricity. However, I accept that the tenant used electricity during the tenancy. In my view, a contribution of $50.00 per week for electricity is reasonable for a family of two. However, there is not enough evidence to confirm the additional top-up payments claimed, so I order that the $404.30 be refunded to the tenant.

Concerning the water rates. It appears that apart from the two payments in June and September 2025, the tenant did not make any contributions to the water. Although the landlord had a swimming pool, the tenant operated a vehicle cleaning service. The landlord’s explanation regarding the usage trend appears reasonable and is supported by invoices. I am satisfied that the top up water payments claimed by the landlord are more likely than not attributable to the tenant. Landlord’s claims Tenant owes rent arrears.

The landlord is claiming rent to the expiry of the 42-day notice on 15 November 2025 of $1,214.28.

The rent summary includes payments made for electricity, firewood, and a fibre internet connection, which the landlord agreed to enter for the tenant due to a poor credit history.

The tenant submits that they owe rent arrears to 05 November 2025 plus power. Tenant owes outstanding water rates.

The landlord claims that the tenant owes water rates of $210.82. Tenant failed to leave the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition.

The landlord stated that there was an oral agreement that the parties would share the mowing of the lawn at the rear of the tenant’s property, and the front of their own dwelling. They stated that at the end of the tenancy the lawn had not been mown. Damage that is more than fair wear and tear

During the tenancy, the tenant was given permission to instal CCTV cameras. The landlord had acknowledged that the installation would involve drilling holes into the fibre cement cladding and stated that they had told the tenant not to worry about any holes, because they would be small and easily repaired. However, after the cameras had been removed the landlord discovered that the holes were significantly larger than anticipated and could not be easily repaired. The landlord stated the fibre cement boards had to be replaced at a cost of $825.00.

The tenant accepted drilling the holes to instal the cameras. The house was built in the 1970s. They stated that the boards were original features and had signs of wear and tear relative to their age. Interfered with the reasonable peace comfort and privacy of the landlord and their neighbours.

The landlord claims that the tenant’s conduct has amounted to an interference with their reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy amounting to harassment.

They also claim that the tenant has harassed some of their other tenants.

The landlord has provided a written statement from the tenants of their other rental property. These tenants state that the tenant in this case contacted them seeking support for their claim against the landlord. They advised the tenant that they did not wish to become involved. Despite this, the tenant later arrived at their property uninvited and tried to persuade them to get involved. The tenants found this stressful and felt it was an invasion of their privacy, so they asked the tenant to leave, which the tenant did. The other tenants also stated that they have a large dog and had found it difficult to secure accommodation. The landlord had initially offered them a month-by-month tenancy as a trial, which had recently become a periodic tenancy.

The tenant accepted that they had sought to gain the other tenants support, that they had been told over the phone that the other tenants did not wish to become involved as it would jeopardise their own tenancy, but they had nevertheless gone to the other tenant’s property. They agreed that they had been asked to leave and that they did so when asked. Law

Under the provisions of the Act the tenant is required to pay rent when it is due.

Under section 40 of the Act, at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This includes the lawns and gardens, but not shrubs and trees.

The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment.

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B (1) of the Act.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.

When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan.

Section 40(2)(c) of the Act, states: The tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or With the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.

The Oxford Dictionary defines peace as freedom from disturbance, comfort as a state of ease and absence of hardship, and privacy as being free from intrusion or observation.

The first limb of section 40(2)(c) relates to the rights of the landlord’s other tenants arising from their right of occupation and protects those who are in a landlord–tenant relationship with the same landlord.

The second limb does not rely on a legal relationship and instead confers the right more generally, protecting those who, as a matter of fact, also happen to reside in the same “neighbourhood” as the tenant.

Having established an interference, the issue then turns to whether it was an unreasonable interference. The question is what a reasonable person would, in the circumstances, consider to be more than a trivial or minor interference with their peace, comfort, or privacy.

Being part of a community requires people to maintain a certain level of tolerance, and on that basis, occasional disturbances that are trivial or minor are not considered breaches of the Act. Interferences that are more serious or persistent may be considered unreasonable and beyond what those residing in the same neighbourhood would be expected to tolerate.

The question as to whether another person residing in the same neighbourhood’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy has been interfered with will involve an objective assessment of the facts.

A contravention of section 40(2)(c) amounting to harassment under section 40(3A) (d) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded of up to $3,000.00. Analysis and decision Rent arrears.

The rent summary includes payments made for electricity, firewood, and a fibre internet connection, which the landlord agreed to enter for the tenant due to a poor credit history.

The tenant was entitled to give their own notice. In the absence of notice the tenant remained liable for rent until the end of the tenancy on 15 November 2025, unless there had been an agreement reached between the parties.

The landlord stated that they were unaware that the tenant was planning to vacate until they were advised on 05 November 2025. The landlord then entered the property and took possession.

I am satisfied that the tenancy ended when the landlord took possession.

The rent summary shows that the tenant was paid up to 29 October 2025. In this case I award the landlord one weeks rent arrears to the 05 November 2025 of $500.00. Outstanding water rates

In response to the tenant’s claim that the landlord charged for water usage not attributable to them, I am satisfied that the analysis and calculation provided by the landlord fairly reflects the water the tenant likely used during the tenancy. Accordingly, I award the $210.82 claimed. Failed to leave the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition.

The parties had an informal agreement to share responsibility of an area of lawn and the rear of the tenant’s property and in front of the landlords. The claim appears based on it being the tenant’s turn to mow the lawn. After the dispute arose concerning the lawn, the tenant mowed the area of lawn closest to their property. The demarcation of the lawn and garden forming the tenancy is not clear. There is insufficient evidence to establish a breach and the claim is dismissed. Damage that is more than fair wear and tear

I am satisfied that the intentional making of holes through which to run cable to the CCTV cameras occurred during the tenancy. Had the holes been of a size anticipated by the landlord, I would have considered it to be fair wear and tear, however, I accept the landlord’s argument that they are larger than required and on that basis are more than fair wear and tear. As the damage is intentional the tenant is liable for the full cost of repair. This is, however, subject to betterment. The property was built in the 1970s, the soffits through which the holes were drilled is showing some evidence of wear and tear. Considering betterment, I award the landlord $400.00 toward the repair. Interference with the reasonable peace comfort and privacy of the landlord and their neighbours

The landlord’s claim is based on the argument that, as a landlord, they have the same statutory right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy as the tenant, as well as their other tenants and neighbours.

There are no provisions in the Act whereby a tenant can be held responsible for interfering with the landlord’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. There are provisions whereby the landlord can claim a breach for assault or threats of assault made against them, landlord’s agents, other tenants of the landlord, or neighbours. There is no evidence of this.

The second part of the landlord’s claim that the tenant has interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy amounting to harassment relies on the landlord also being defined as a neighbour. The question is whether the landlord can also be a “neighbour” for the purposes of the Act.

The terms "neighbour" and "neighbourhood" are not defined in the Act. The Tribunal generally interprets these terms to include people who live in the same building, next door, across the street, or otherwise close enough to be affected by the tenant’s behaviour.

Because of the contractual relationship between a landlord and tenant, I find that the landlord cannot also rely on the neighbour provisions. In my view the landlord’s remedies for conduct by the tenant are found elsewhere in the Act, such as section 55 (assault or threats of assault) rather than through the provisions concerning neighbours.

Dealing with the allegation that the tenant has harassed the landlord’s other tenant. The facts are accepted by the tenant. Having been advised that the other tenant did not wish to become involved, they nevertheless went to their address. Had they not left when asked, the Tribunal may have found that the interference amounted to harassment. The fact that the tenant left when requested, while amounting to an interference, does not in my view amount to harassment. General damages for pain and suffering

General damages for pain and suffering are compensation awarded for non- financial loss, such as distress or anxiety. This type of loss must have been within the contemplation of the parties when they entered the tenancy. In other words, was the type of loss suffered reasonably foreseeable if a breach occurred.

Parties are entitled to raise issues concerning perceived breaches of the agreement and the Act with each other. They may also bring claims before the Tribunal. Exercising these rights is not of itself a breach of the Act.

The breaches found proven against the tenant are for rent arrears and damage to the soffits. In my view general damages for pain and suffering over and above compensation for actual loss would not have been contemplated by the parties at the commencement of the tenancy. The claim for general damages is dismissed. Exemplary damages

Section 109(2) of the Act sets out the time limits for applying for exemplary damages for an unlawful act.

For unlawful acts relating to section 19(2) (failure to lodge bond) or section 30(2) (failure to keep records), an application must be made within 12 months after the termination of the tenancy.

For any other unlawful act, an application must be made within 12 months after the date the unlawful act was committed.

This means there is a 12-month limitation period for bringing a claim for exemplary damages, either from the end of the tenancy (for certain bond-related breaches) or from the date of the unlawful act (for all other breaches).

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109(3) of the Act.

In awarding exemplary damages, the Tribunal must consider: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award

If there are multiple breaches of an obligation (multiple instances of unlawful acts) that could otherwise individually be the subject of an exemplary damages order, only one order of exemplary damages may be made for a breach of a particular section.

This approach was confirmed by the District Court in Manage My Rental v Baxter NZDC 12011, and MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited NZDC 27583, which held that the correct approach is a global approach, meaning one order to a single maximum, irrespective of the number of breaches of a section.

In this case, the claims can be grouped as follows: section 45 (failure to maintain), breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), failure to provide HHS information, and failure to provide details of insurance (maximum exemplary damages: $7,200.00); section 13 (tenancy agreement and its contents, $750.00); section 19 (failure to lodge the bond, $1,500.00); section 29 (failure to issue receipts, $350.00); section 38(3) (harassment, $3,000.00); section 48(4) (failure to provide results of testing, $1,000.00); section 54 (retaliatory notice, $6,500.00); and section 137 (prohibited transaction, $1,800.00). The amounts in brackets next to each section indicate the maximum exemplary damages that may be awarded under each section. Analysis and decision

The failure to provide an HHS statement with the tenancy agreement and entering into a prohibited transaction are breaches for which exemplary damages may be awarded. However, these breaches occurred when the tenancy was entered, which is more than twelve months before the claim was made. Pursuant to section 109(2) there is no jurisdiction to award exemplary damages.

All of the other breaches fall within the applicable time limit in section 109(2).

Dealing with the statutory considerations in section 109(3) of the Act. I cannot accept the claim that the landlord found themselves “accidental landlords.” They claim to have seventeen years’ experience as landlord, and it must be presumed that they have knowledge of the type of contracts they are entering into. In this case they have intentionally entered into what can be described as a “pre tenancy agreement”, calling the arrangement a boarding agreement.

In their written submissions the landlord stated: “.... The boarders were never going to be tenants on the property as we needed protection and the ability to give them 3 weeks’ notice as per the boarder’s agreement. This was due to them failing to produce any references, no credit rating, and no financial ability to pay bond...”

It appears they entered into a similar type of pre tenancy agreement with their other tenants.

Initially, the tenant claimed they were unaware that they had entered into a residential tenancy agreement, rather than a boarding agreement where they shared the property with the landlord, until they contacted Tenancy Services around October 2025. However, during the hearing, the tenant admitted they had known from the start the true legal nature of the relationship but, being desperate, had accepted the landlord’s offer and willingly entered into the agreement.

The fact that the tenant had previously taken a landlord to the Tribunal also suggests they were familiar with tenancy agreements. The arrangement appears to have suited the tenant, with no issues raised until shortly before the relationship ended. Although a tenant cannot waive their rights under the Act, I consider these circumstances relevant to the assessment of exemplary damages.

The bond is not the landlord’s and remains the tenant’s subject to any agreement by the parties to release it at the conclusion of the tenancy, or by order of the Tribunal. Landlords are obliged to make themselves familiar with the provisions of the Act. Failure to lodge the bond deprives the tenant of the protection of the bond process. A claim by the landlord that they were unaware of the provisions is an explanation but not an excuse. The bond was not paid in full at the commencement of the tenancy and was made in small instalments. Taking these factors into consideration I award the tenant exemplary damages of $50.00.

Regards the failure to provide receipts. Again, this arises from an ignorance of the provisions of the Act. The rent summary indicates that this occurred on three occasions over the course of the tenancy. The rent summary shows the cash payments, and this is not challenged by the tenant. I award the tenant $25.00 exemplary damages.

It is clearly in the public interests that properties offered for residential rental meet the HHS standards. Tenants are entitled to information in possession of the landlord concerning the properties compliance status. Whether the landlord has insurance and if so, details of cover and excess are important to a tenant who wishes to determine their liability should damage occur. Taking these factors and the others in section 109(3) into account, I award the tenant $150.00 exemplary damages.

The landlord intentionally issued the notice terminating the tenancy. Up until that point, the parties had enjoyed a good relationship, but it is clear that the relationship quickly deteriorated around the time the notice was given. The issuance of the notice caused the tenant stress, and having to move was undoubtedly inconvenient. Taking these factors and the other considerations in section 109(3) into account, I award the tenant $500.00 in exemplary damages. Costs

Under section 102 (4) of the Act, the Tribunal has the discretion to reimburse the filing fee of a party that has been partly successful with their claim.

As both parties have been partly successful, any reimbursement to one would be cancelled by the award to the other. No orders are made. Name suppression

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The tenant seeks name suppression. The landlord does not.

In this case neither party has been sufficiently successful, and no orders for suppression are made.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361914 — net $68.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$500.00		Retaliatory notice
Water rates: to 05 November 2025	$210.82		Water rates: to 05 November 2025
Repairs: soffits	$400.00		Repairs: soffits
Rent arrears to 05 November 2025		$500.00	Rent arrears to 05 November 2025
Compensation: refund electricity payments		$404.30	refund electricity payments
Compensation: failure to comply insulation HHS		$50.00	failure to comply insulation HHS
Exemplary damages: Bond		$50.00	Bond
Exemplary damages: Receipts		$25.00	Receipts
Exemplary damages: HHS		$150.00	HHS
Total award	$1,110.82	$1,179.30
Net award		$68.48
Bond		$650.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$68.48