Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5375784 — Rent arrears at 47A Lupis Way, Kaiwaka 0573
Decided 9 Jul 2026 · Published 9 Jul 2026 · Application 5375784
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
Order
- The tenant’s application is dismissed.
- [The tenant/s] is to pay Rodney Property Management Limited (as agent for Paul Lee and [The landlord/s] $686.83 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (6557019-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Rodney Property Management Limited (as agent for Paul Lee and [The landlord/s]: $686.83 [The tenant/s]: $1,293.17
Reasons
Background
- The adjournment order dated 25 March 2026 sets out the background to the applications.
- The hearing for the tenant’s application took place in Whangarei on 19 June 2026. Landlord application
- As noted in the previous order: a. Ms Hardy accepted the claims for rent arrears and utilities. b. Ms Hardy acknowledged the damage to the ceiling but questioned the cost of repairs which were carried out by the owner. c. The only methamphetamine related cost claimed by the landlord is the cost of detailed testing. d. The application was amended to include the cost of refilling the water tank at the end of the tenancy. Ceiling repair
- The landlord provided an invoice for the repairs.
- The amount claimed, representing one hour of labour and a small amount of materials, is fair and reasonable.
- The tenant is liable for this repair cost. Methaphetamine
- The premises were tested for methamphetamine in October 2025. The result was positive on a 6-sample composite at an average level of 11.7 micrograms / 100cm2.
- The landlord requested detailed (sample by sample) results. The results were positive on all 6 samples, with levels ranging from 0.15 micrograms (conservatory wall) to 23 micrograms (bathroom window frame).
- The claim seeks the testing cost only.
- The premises were not tested for methamphetamine before the start of this tenancy.
- Tenants must not use the premises, or permit them to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
- Although the Tribunal has a lower burden of proof than the criminal courts (“on the balance of probabilities” rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt”), the allegation is serious and it is appropriate to require robust evidence. 1
- My finding is that in the absence of pre-tenancy testing or any other evidence of methamphetamine use during the tenancy, the landlord has not met the burden of proof.
- Therefore, the claim for testing costs must be dismissed. Water tank refill
- The landlord provided an invoice from The Waterboy Mangawhai for a water delivery on 30 October 2025. The invoiced amount is $433.55.
- The property is on tank supply.
- Where a property is not on a reticulated water supply, the landlord must provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water. 2
- Tenants must pay for outgoings that they consume. 3
- There is no clause in the tenancy agreement stating that the tenant must ensure that the tank is fill to an particular level at the end of the tenancy.
- There is no evidence about the amount of water in the tank at the start of this tenancy.
- I am unable to determine with the means for collection and storage of water are adequate.
- This part of the landlord’s claim is not proven. Tenant application Unlawful residential premises
- The Tenancy Tribunal may make a range of orders if the Tribunal is satisfied that the premises were unlawful residential premises. The possible orders include a full refund of all the rent that the tenant paid during the tenancy. 1 Holmes v Housing Corporation of New Zealand [2016] NZDC 16021 2 Section 45(1)(ca) RTA 3 Section 39(3) RTA
- Unlawful residential premises are used for occupation but that cannot be lawfully used for that purpose.
- There are two dwellings and a tiny home at this address. The main dwellings are a 3-bedroom main residence, and the open-plan apartment style dwelling that Ms Hardy rented.
- Ms Hardy said that: a. After the end of her tenancy the property was put on the market for sale. The tender document provided to prospective purchasers included a statement that the property included a “shed converted into a dwelling” and that “certain aspects specified by vendor in respect of the property or buildings” did not have consents or permits and may not comply with the Building Code. b. She obtain the LIM report from the local Council. The LIM notes that the Council “has no record of any building works at the property, such as a potential second dwelling(s) or shed, having authorised through a Building Consent”. The LIM notes that as at 26 February 2026 the Council “has requested a site visit to further investigate these matters”.
- Mr Lee said that: a. When he purchased the property there were no dwellings on it. b. He had the smaller (shed) dwelling built as temporary accommodation while the main house was under construction. c. No consent was obtained for the smaller dwelling. At that time, the construction of these temporary dwellings was common practice in the area and (so far as he was aware) was not prohibited by the local Council. d. After the main house was finished, he obtained a Code of Compliance Certificate in June 2018. He understood that the Code of Compliance amounted to Council ‘sign off’ of the whole property. e. In 2023 he carried out a substantial ‘upgrade’ of the smaller dwelling to bring it to compliance with the healthy homes standards. The renovations did not require building consent. f. The property came to the Council’s attention when he listed it for sale. The Council questioned the status and legality of the smaller dwelling. Because the situation was unclear, out of caution and on advice from his real estate agent, a statement was included in the tender documents. g. He had multiple meetings with Council employees after February. The outcome, as he understands it, is that the Council accepts his position. The Council has not issued any notices and the matter is at an end.
- The information that Ms Hardy certainly raised reasonable and legitimate concerns about the lawfulness of the tenanted premises.
- However questions about whether building consent is required, and what a code of compliance covers and does not cover can be complex.
- I accept that the statement in the tender document should not, in context, be seen as an admission of liability by Mr Lee but rather as an appropriately cautious position given that the situation was unclear and discussions with the Council were ongoing. The LIM report shows that as at February 2026, the Council took the view that, in the absence of a building consent or code of compliance specifically for the smaller dwelling, the dwelling was unlawful. However, the discussions did not end in February.
- The fact that the Council has taken any further action supports Mr Lee’s statement that the Council has ultimately accepted his position. The Council is not requiring Mr Lee to remove the smaller dwelling or to convert it back into a shed.
- Therefore, although Ms Hardy had a reasonable basis for her concerns, my finding is that it is not proven that the premises could not be lawfully occupied during Ms Hardy’s tenancy. Healthy homes standards
- Ms Hardy raised two issues – insulation and heating. a. Insulation
- Ms Hardy raised the question of whether the property meets the healthy homes standard for insulation because the tenancy agreement states that there is no underfloor or ceiling insulation.
- Ms Rogers said that this is an error in the agreement. Mr Lee confirmed that there is ceiling insulation, and also polystyrene insulation in the floor albeit that the floor is concrete and an exemption applies anyway.
- Mr Lee provided a photograph of the dwelling with the renovation work underway – the ceiling is barely visible in the photograph, but it shows insulation in the walls.
- Again, Ms Hardy’s claim is completely reasonable given the information available to her. This illustrates the importance of the landlord ensuring that information in the tenancy agreement is complete and accurate.
- However, the critical question is whether the property in fact meets the healthy homes standard for insulation. An exemption applies for underfloor insulation for this dwelling because it has a concrete floor. Mr Lee’s oral evidence and photograph is sufficient to establish that the property has ceiling insulation. I accept that the purpose of the renovation was to bring the property to the healthy homes standard. It seems unlikely that Mr Lee would go to the trouble of fitting wall insulation (which is not a mandatory healthy homes requirement) but not install ceiling insulation. ii. Heating
- The property is comprised of a large open plan “loft-style” space and a separate bathroom.
- There is a 2kW electric panel heater in the main living area.
- The heating standard requires that landlords must have a fixed means of heating that has sufficient capacity (minimum 1.5kW) to meet the minimum heating capacity for the main living area. The Regulations 4 include a complex formula for calculating the minimum heating capacity based on the size of the area, the size of windows in the area, and the insulation. The Tenancy Services website also has a tool for calculating the minimum heating capacity.
- Ms Hardy used the Tenancy Services’ tool to calculate the minimum heating capacity necessary for the living area. The answer was 4.6kW, more than double the size of the 2kW panel heater that is in the premises. At the hearing Ms Hardy provided a printout of the calculation, showing the figures.
- The landlords did the same exercise using the Tenancy Services tool when they were renovating the property. The answer that they got was 1.5kW. Mr Lee provided a printout of their calculation in the evidence that he provided to the Tribunal.
- There are differences between the two calculations, in terms of the number of walls and window areas. As noted above, this is an open plan living area and there are some complexities around calculation.
- I do not have sufficient information to determine whether the tenant’s calculation of walls and windows is more accurate than the landlords.
- There is one important aspect in which the landlord’s calculation includes information that is more accurate than the tenant’s. Ms Hardy did not know about the insulation in the walls, ceiling, and floor so the calculation tool used a ‘default’ (low) R-value for these areas. Mr Lee’s calculation uses the actual R- values of the insulation that he installed.
- Ms Hardy’s argument that the property did not meet the healthy homes standard for heating is based on the results from the heating assessment tool on the Tenancy Services website. Because some of the information that she 4 Schedule 2, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 input in the tool was not accurate, my finding is that the result cannot be accepted as evidence establishing that the heating in these premises did not meet the healthy homes standard Bond
- Landlords must forward any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23- working days of receipt. 5
- Ms Hardy paid the bond on 16 October 2024. The Bond Centre received the bond from the property manager on 7 December 2024.
- Failure to comply with the requirements for handling bonds is an unlawful act, and the Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $1500.
- Exemplary damages are punitive, similar to a fine. The Tribunal has a discretion as to whether to award exemplary damages, and if so at what level.
- It is appropriate to penalise landlords who retain bonds or who are careless in dealing with bonds.
- In this instance the bond was lodged late due to an oversight by the property manager. The delay was relatively minor, the breach was not intentional, and there was no impact on the tenant.
- My finding is that it is not appropriate to award exemplary damages in this instance. Gas bottles service charge
- Ms Hardy seeks a refund of $208.08 that she paid for the supply of LPG gas bottes.
- I agree that this is not an outgoings cost based on consumption, which tenants must pay. 6 It is part of the establishment of services that the landlord is responsible for.
- This part of the claim is proven. Outgoings
- Ms Hardy noted that she paid 50% of the internet cost and a fixed portion of the power cost.
- Tenants must pay for outgoings that they consume. 5 Section 19(1)(b) RTA 6 Section 39(3) RTA
- Mr Lee said that there is a sub-meter for power at the tenanted premises. The understanding was that the tenant would read the meter monthly and provide them with this information so that they could calculate her actual power use. Mr Lee said that Ms Hardy did this once only, so the other power bills that she received were assessments / estimates, based on the number of persons using power at the property.
- If there is no means for accurately calculating the tenant’s use of outgoings, that does not mean that the tenant is not liable to pay. 7 The Tribunal must determine disputes according to the substantial merits and justice of the case. 8
- In this instance: a. Internet is not charged on a “per unit” basis like power and water. Dividing the monthly charge between the two dwellings was fair and reasonable. Ms Hardy paid this cost without complaint during the tenancy. b. The landlord had a system to calculate the tenant’s actual use of power, but it required Ms Hardy’s co-operation. If Ms Hardy did not provide the landlord with the actual sub-meter reading, the only option for the landlord was to estimate. In the circumstances, the ‘per head’ apportionment of power costs was fair and reasonable. Outcome, filing fee, bond, name suppression
- Both parties were partially successful in their applications and I will award the filing fee to both parties. 9
- The landlords will receive $686.83 from the bond, calculated per the table above. The balance of the bond will be released to Ms Hardy.
- Ms Hardy sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression on application to any party that has “wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings”. 10 As discussed above, Ms Hardy raised legitimate concerns and presented credible evidence in support of her application, but in terms of outcome Ms Hardy has not wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings. Therefore, name suppression is not granted in this instance. 7 Geraghty & Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813 8 Section 85 RTA 9 Section 102(4)(a) RTA 10 Section 95A(1) RTA