What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5393303 about?

The tribunal order states: Austar Property Services Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,769.50

How much money was awarded in case 5393303?

Compensation: Beach of quiet enjoyme…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Tenant HH assessment f…: $241.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393303?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393303?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13644090-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5393303 about?

The tribunal order states: Austar Property Services Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,769.50

How much money was awarded in case 5393303?

Compensation: Beach of quiet enjoyme…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Tenant HH assessment f…: $241.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393303?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393303?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13644090-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

178 Halsey Drive, Lynfield, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5393303 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5393303 — net $2,769.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain and breach HHS as at 1 July 2025	$2,000.00	Failure to maintain and breach HHS as at 1 July 2025
Compensation: Tenant HH assessment fee	$241.50	Tenant HH assessment fee
Compensation: Beach of quiet enjoyment	$500.00	Beach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,769.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,769.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5393303 — net $2,769.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain and breach HHS as at 1 July 2025	$2,000.00	Failure to maintain and breach HHS as at 1 July 2025
Compensation: Tenant HH assessment fee	$241.50	Tenant HH assessment fee
Compensation: Beach of quiet enjoyment	$500.00	Beach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,769.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,769.50

Order

Austar Property Services Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,769.50 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant filed an application on 11 December 2025 claiming a breach of landlord obligations in respect of failing to maintain, breach of quiet enjoyment, and Healthy Homes Standards non-compliance as at 1 July 2025. Background
The tenancy started on 20 June 2015 and ended on 11 December 2025.
The premises consisted of a 3-bedroom, 1 bathroom brick and tile house. The tenant resided at the address with his family.
The tenant made his application seeking compensation and exemplary damages for an alleged breach of landlord obligations.
I held a hearing with both parties present.
There has been a lot of communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.
I heard oral evidence from the parties. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. The landlord also provided evidence at the start of the hearing, all of which has been carefully considered by the Tribunal.
The landlord provided the following helpful bundles of evidence at the start of the hearing: • Tenancy agreement • Entry inspection report • Exit inspection report with separate booklet of photographs • Healthy Homes assessment reports • Maintenance evidence • Email correspondence between the parties • Routine inspection reports with photographs • Spreadsheet of maintenance work carried out for the period 2 June 2015 to 22 October 2025. Issues
On the tenant’s application the issues to be determined are these: • Did the landlord commit any unlawful acts? If so, Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? • Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? • Should the Tribunal order the landlord to pay the cost of the HHS report obtained by the tenant? Relevant law
Section 38 sets out a landlord’s responsibilities in respect of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them is the requirement that a landlord comply with the HHS.
A failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act in each case – section 13A(1F) RTA and section 45(1A) RTA.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
Section 109 RTA sets out what must be established before the Tribunal can award exemplary damages.
Schedule 1A RTA sets out the maximum amounts that can be awarded by way of exemplary damages. Other legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. 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.
The tenant’s compensation claims are for an actual loss (the cost of the HHS report) and for the alleged loss of use of and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy (because the premises were not HHS compliant by the deadline date of 1 July 2025).
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
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 RTA. Those factors are: a. The intention of the person; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest. Tenant claims Did the landlord breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment?
The tenant says that in September 2025 he noticed people coming on to the backyard of the property to undertake surveying work. The tenant was then advised that Watercare would need to come on to the property to undertake work. The tenant said that trucks and diggers and large numbers of people would turn up. The tenant says that the property sold in December 2025 and says that preparation for development started well before the property was sold. On one occasion the tenant was asked to keep the driveway clear so that a digger could have access to the backyard.
On 18 October 2025 another contractor entered and undertook survey work.
The landlord responds by stating that the tenant was given notice well in advance of all attendances on the property. The landlord says that the notices were always emailed to the tenant with the required notice period.
The tenant says that there were approximately 6 times they turned up without notice. The tenant says that they brought this to the attention of the landlord by email. The tenant emailed the landlord on 21 October 2025 stating that multiple trade vehicles and construction workers turned up and asked to clear the driveway. The tenant stated in his email that they were not informed about [today’s] activity.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA. Analysis
The tenant seeks compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment under section 38 of the residential tenancy act.
The evidence establishes that from approximately September 2025, contractors, surveyors, trucks, diggers and work crews repeatedly entered the property in connection with infrastructure and development works associated with the property.
The tenant states that persons first attended the backyard in September 2025 to undertake surveying activities and then on 18 October 2025 further contractors into the property to carry out additional survey work.
Section 38 requires a landlord to ensure that tenants reasonable peace comfort and privacy are not interfered with.
Although landlords may arrange necessary inspections or works and may permit contractors to attend where lawful notices have been given, repeated intrusions, particularly involving heavy machinery, numerous workers and development related activity can amount to a substantial interference with quiet enjoyment where the disruption exceeds what a tenant could reasonably be expected to tolerate.
I accept that the ongoing presence of contractor’s machinery and survey personnel over a sustained period materially disrupted the tenants’ occupation of the property. I also accept on the balance of probabilities that there were several occasions where persons attended without proper notice having first been given to the tenant.
Even when notice was provided on other occasions the cumulative nature, intensity in frequency of the works associated with impending development unreasonably interfered with the tenant’s peace and comfort.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the landlord breached section 38 of the RTA and the tenant is entitled to exemplary damages for loss of quiet enjoyment.
I find it just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of exemplary damages because I am satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally, and that, having regard to: • the landlord would have been well aware in advance of plans to develop the property • the interests of the tenants, against whom the unlawful act was committed, to receive a penalty payment from the landlord for this breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises; and • It is in the public interest to penalise a landlord for such breaches as outlined above. See section 109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA
Accordingly, taking these factors into account I find that an award of exemplary damages of $500.00 is justified in these circumstances.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: • provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Failure to repair and paint windows
The tenant says that issues with the windows were there from day one. He says that the property manager stated they would have the windows painted. They say that they had one contractor turn up before COVID. When they started the work the contractor discovered that the windows were in far worse condition than expected. The owner then decided to leave it.
After COVID the tenant raised the issue of the windows and was advised by the property manager that the owner’s husband had lost his job and that they were short of funds. They advised the property manager that the work would be undertaken later. The tenant says that they would often raise this issue during the routine inspections. He says that time went on without repair. He states that the HH assessment noted that the windows should be painted to achieve compliance.
The landlord says that in May 2019 the house was washed. On 14 July 2021 the windows were painted.
The tenant has provided 3 photographs taken in November 2025 clearly showing paint flaking off the window frames. The windows were in the bedroom and the lounge.
The landlord says that a routine inspection was carried out in September 2025. The landlord says that she noticed the dining room window needed attention. The landlord says that she advised the tenant to open the window for some ventilation. The tenant maintains that the windows were never painted and that most of the windows did not open. Kitchen bench top hole
The tenant says that when they moved in there was a large hole beside the kitchen tap on the bench top. They were told by the landlord that the owner would replace the entire benchtop. The tenant says that the bench was never replaced but eventually the landlord placed a metal plate over the holes. The tenant says that water would often leak through the holes to the area beneath the benchtop.
The landlord provided photographs of the defect. The owner was advised that to replace the entire benchtop would run into thousands of dollars. The landlord says that they were never advised that water was running through the hole. The landlord says that it did not get worse. The tenant says they mentioned it during various routine inspections. Bathroom walls and ceiling
The tenant says that the bathroom wall paint started to peel off the walls approximately 4 years ago. The tenant says it was also the paint on the bathroom ceiling. The tenant says he brought it to the attention of the landlord during the routine inspections. He says that the response from the landlord was that “we will get it done”. He says that they did not email the landlord about this but rather only mentioned it during routine inspections.
The landlord provided photographs of the wall which were considered during the hearing. The photos clearly show deterioration of the bathroom wall above the shower. Analysis
The tenant claims that the landlord breached section 45 of the RTA by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1)(b) requires a landlord to 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 tendency is likely to continue.
Having considered the evidence of both parties, including the comprehensive photographic evidence provided by the landlord during the hearing I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to meet their obligation in several respects over an extended period of tenancy.
In relation to the windows the tenants’ evidence was that the exterior and interior window frames had deteriorated since the commencement of the tenancy in 2015 notwithstanding repeated assurances given that repainting and repairs would be undertaken.
The tenant’s evidence was that a contractor attended prior to COVID to undertake preparatory work and identified that the windows were in substantially worse condition than originally anticipated after which the work was deferred indefinitely.
The tenant further raised concerns with the landlord during routine inspections regarding the deteriorating windows and their inability to properly open and close. The response from the landlord concerning the owners experiencing financial difficulty following the loss of employment supports the tenant’s position that the repairs were knowingly postponed rather than completed.
While the landlord asserted that the windows were repainted in July 2021 the tenant strongly disputed this and produced photographs dated November 2025 showing significant paint failure and flaking to the bedroom and lounge window frames. Those photographs were consistent with longstanding deterioration rather than recently completed painting work.
I also note the tenant’s evidence that the Healthy Homes assessment report identified the windows as requiring painting to achieve compliance.
The landlord’s evidence that only one dining room window required attention is inconsistent with the photographic evidence before the tribunal.
I therefore find that the windows had been allowed to deteriorate over many years without adequate repair or repainting and that the landlord failed to maintain them in a reasonable state of repair.
In relation to the kitchen bench top I accept the tenant’s evidence that a hole existed near the kitchen tap from the beginning of the tenancy and that the tenant was initially advised the bench top would be replaced.
The landlord instead arranged for a metal plate to be fitted over the affected area. Photographs produced by the landlord confirmed the existence of the defect.
The tenant’s evidence was that water would often leak through the damaged area beneath the bench top and that the issue was repeatedly mentioned during inspections.
Although the landlord denied being advised about water penetration and stated that full replacement would cost several thousands, that alone does not relieve the landlord of the statutory obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The evidence establishes that the defect remained for many years without substantive remediation and that the repair undertaken was temporary. I therefore find that the landlord failed to properly repair the kitchen bench top at the earliest opportunity.
The third issue concerns the bathroom walls and ceiling. The tenant’s evidence was that paint deterioration and peeling had been occurring for approximately 4 years and that the issue was regularly raised during routine inspections.
The landlord produced photographs which clearly showed deterioration and paint failure above the shower area. Although the tenant did not provide written notice by email I accept that the issue was repeatedly brought to the landlord's attention orally during inspections.
The visible deterioration depicted in the photographs clearly demonstrates that the issue had existed for a considerable period and had not been effectively addressed.
The landlord’s response that the work would be attended to was not followed by meaningful repairs. Bathroom paint deterioration in wet areas, particularly above a shower is not merely cosmetic but reflects prolonged exposure to moisture and lack of maintenance.
Considering all of these matters cumulatively, I am satisfied that the landlord was aware or ought reasonably to have been aware of long-standing maintenance defects affecting the windows, kitchen bench top and the bathroom walls and failed within a reasonable period to undertake adequate repairs.
The defects persisted over a significant portion of the tendency despite repeated complaints during routine inspections.
Accordingly, I find that the landlord breached their obligations by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
I find it just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of exemplary damages because I am satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally, and that, having regard to: • the landlord was aware of the maintenance issues. • the effect of the unlawful act on the tenants has been significant as they have had to live in premises which were not properly maintained. • the interests of the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed to receive a penalty payment from the landlord for these significant breaches of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises • It is in the public interest to penalise a landlord for such breaches as outlined above. See section 109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA. Outside concrete pathway
The tenant says that during the first few years of the tenancy it was never a problem. Then later with more rain the path started to flood within the last 2 years of the tenancy. The water would not disappear.
The tenant says that they would use the back entrance due to the flooding. They also say that when they had visitors it was embarrassing having to ask them to use the back entrance.
The tenant says that they brought this issue to the attention of the landlord in July 2025. The tenant says that they emailed the landlord with a photograph of the path. The tenant says that they were advised the next day that nothing could be done about it.
The landlord says that if one considers the routine inspection photos up until 14 December 2020 the path was always clear. The landlord also says that the tenants had pot plants sitting along the side of the path which prevented water from draining away. The landlord accepts that they received an email from the tenant in respect of this and maintained that nothing could be done about the issue. Failure to remove green waste
The tenant says that they asked the landlord several times to remove the green waste dumped on the property in 2017. The tenant says that he sent an email in respect of this, and nothing was done about it. The tenant says it was never removed.
The landlord provided two invoices – one from Tree Climbers dated 15 August 2017 for removal of green waste and tree work and another from Growth Maintenance dated 9 May 2022 for further tree work.
The claims in respect of the concrete pathway and removal of green waste are dismissed. There is no evidence to support that these issues amounted to a breach of landlord obligations. Did the landlord fail to ensure the premises complied with HHS requirements by 1 July 2025?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating and draught stopping standards.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters have a minimum heating capacity.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The tenant says that the premises were not compliant with HH by the compliance date of 1 July 2025. The parties each produced their own HH assessment reports which I have considered. The landlord says they relied on the initial assessment undertaken by Greenstar Energy Solutions dated 19 December 2019.
The tenant produced a Healthy Homes assessment report from Healthy Homes Inspections New Zealand Limited dated 14 November 2025. The assessment found that the premises were non-compliant in respect of draught stopping, ventilation and heating. The report noted that all windows should be checked and maintained by a professional joiner.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that they accept the premises did not comply by the deadline date of 1 July 2025. The landlord also confirmed that there was no heating in the premises prior to the heat pump being installed on 24 July 2025. The landlord also provided an assessment report from Oncore Limited dated 28 July 2025 confirming non-compliance relating to draught stopping and heating.
The tenant says that the report from Greenside Energy Solutions dated 19 September 2025 and 24 October 2025 is questionable given that they could not open some of the windows. Analysis
The tenant submits that the landlord failed to ensure that the premises complied with the healthy home standards as required under the RTA by the compliance date of 1 July 2025.
Both parties produced Healthy Homes assessment reports however, the landlord ultimately accepted during the hearing that the premises were not compliant by the required deadline.
The landlord relied on an assessment undertaken by Greenstar Energy Solutions, while the tenant produced a separate assessment report prepared by Healthy Homes Inspections New Zealand limited dated 14 November 2025. The report identified multiple areas of non-compliance including deficiencies relating to draught stopping, ventilation and heating.
The report further noted that all windows required inspection and maintenance by a professional joiner. The report also recorded that the windows did not open and close with ease and that remedial maintenance was necessary.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that there was no fixed heating source installed at the premises prior to the installation of a heat pump on 24 July 2025, being after the compliance date of 1 July 2025.
The tenant further submits that the updated assessment report dated October 2025 should be treated with caution as the assessor was allegedly unable to properly open some of the windows during the inspection, raising concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of the conclusions reached in that report.
In light of the landlord’s admissions and the evidence before the Tribunal, and the premises failing to meet the Healthy Home Standards by 1 July 2025 I am satisfied that the landlord was therefore in breach of their obligations under the Act.
Having carefully considered the evidence provided I am entirely satisfied that the landlord breached their obligations by not ensuring that the premises were fully compliant by the required date of 1 July 2025.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Parliament intended breaches of the HHS to be taken seriously by providing for exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for this unlawful act – the highest amount of exemplary damages. Parliament’s intention when enacting the HHS was to ensure that rental premises were warm, ventilated, and draught free.
Considering those factors, I have determined that exemplary damages are appropriate and award a global amount of $2,000.00 in recognition of the landlord’s breach in respect of failing to maintain and failing to ensure the premises were HH compliant by 1 July 2025. Should the landlord reimburse the tenant for the cost of the HHS assessment report dated 14 November 2025?
The tenant seeks the cost of the HHS assessment he had carried out. Were this obtained solely as evidence for the hearing, the Tribunal would not reimburse the cost as each party bears the cost of providing evidence. However, the report was obtained because the tenant was not assured that the premises were HHS compliant.
I find that the tenant should be reimbursed the cost of the report he obtained. Had the premises been HHS compliant by the required date of 1 July 2025 he would not have needed to fund his own assessment.
I therefore award the tenant the $241.50 report fee. Rent refund
The tenant seeks a part rent refund due to the fact that the premises were not HH compliant by the deadline date 1 July 2025. The tenant seeks a 50% refund of the rent payable from 1 July 2025 to 11 December 2025.
The landlord says that they had a HH assessment report done in December 2019 by Greenstar Energy Solutions which recorded they needed a 6kw heat pump. This was not installed until 24 July 2025. They say that Encore advised them that they required an 8kw heat pump.
The landlord then installed a top up panel heater on 22 October 2025. The property manager says the owner acted in good faith based on the advice from Greenstar at the time in 2019. The landlord undertook a routine inspection July 2025 where the tenant confirmed that they were happy with the heating. Analysis
I accept that the premises were not fully compliant with the Healthy Home Standards at 1 July 2025. However, the issue is whether the tenant is entitled to the substantial rent refund as claimed.
Reduction or refund is not automatic upon proof of non-compliance. The Tribunal must consider the extent to which the tenant was actually deprived of the use, benefit and enjoyment of the premises during the relevant period.
In this case the tenant remained in occupation of the premises until 11 December 2025 and continued to have the use and enjoyment of the property throughout that time.
There is no evidence that the premises were uninhabitable or that the tenant was unable to reside there in a reasonable manner.
Importantly the evidence includes a routine inspection undertaken in July 2025 during which the tenant confirmed that they were satisfied with the heating at that time. While that does not excuse the landlord’s non-compliance it is relevant to the extent of any loss or inconvenience actually suffered by the tenant.
I also accept that the landlord took steps to comply with the Standards once the updated advice regarding the heating calculation was received.
The tenant has not provided persuasive evidence establishing that they suffered a loss equivalent to 50% of the rent paid over the entire claim period. The claim effectively seeks a retrospective reduction of rent notwithstanding that the tenant continued to occupy and benefit from the premises.
In the circumstances I am not satisfied that the level of interference for the tenants’ use, and enjoyment of the premises justifies the substantial refund sought.
Accordingly, while I find there was a period of non-compliance with the Healthy Home standards I decline the tenants claim for a 50% rent refund.
The remaining amounts claimed by the tenant in his monetary compensation schedule are unrealistic and not supported by the evidence filed.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393303 — Healthy homes at 178 Halsey Drive, Lynfield, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393303 — Healthy homes at 178 Halsey Drive, Lynfield, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions